Page
  1. 1
    1
  2. 2
    2

Criminal law - The Theft Act 1968

Extracts from this essay...

Introduction

Criminal Law Semester 2 LW 107 Section 1 (1) of the Theft Act 1968 creates the legal definition of theft that is: 'A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it'. Each various area f this definition are explained in sections 2 to 6 of the act. In the case of R v Gomez [1993] AC 442 a number of areas was needed to be resolved upon deciding the case especially when dealing with appropriation. S 3 (1) gives the legal definition of appropriation as: 'any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner'. There are two problematic issues relating to the meaning of 'appropriation' which the court has tried to deal with in recent years.

Middle

But it depends on weather it is an honest appropriation or a dishonest one. If it is an honest appropriation no theft has been committed, as you do not have to just leave the building in order o commit theft. Leaving the building or make off without payment is simply proof that the shopper committed theft. A dishonest appropriation can constitute theft if the shopper knows that they will leave without paying, even if the supermarket consents to the appropriation of goods off the shelf. There is an assumption of rights of the owner, which is to purchase before leaving the store (in reference to Lawrence) As the Theft Act did not recognize weather appropriation could occur with or without the owner's consent the courts had to resolve this problem. In Lawrence [1971] 2 All ER 1253 HL the courts held that even the foreigner held his wallet out and permitted the taxi driver to take his money it amounted to appropriation even though it was consented. The court said there was a clear appropriation by s 3 (1)

Conclusion

The case of R v Hinks (2000) reinforced he position in Gomez hat appropriation was a neutral word within the meaning of theft act and even the acquisition of good title or legitimate ownership, was capable to amounting to appropriation. The court also said there can be theft of a gift if the recipient is dishonest. S 3(2) of the Theft Act provides for appropriation where the original possession of property was innocent. Although if the original possession of the goods was not innocent, later assumption of the same goods would not be theft according to R v Atakpu [1993]. In this case the defendant hired cars with false documents, which amounted to an appropriation. In conclusion the law in this area is no that satisfied. The cases of Morris and Gomez have widened the spectrum. The result in Gomez may have conflicted with civil law. As in Hinks the court held the recipient of a valid gift might be said to have appropriated the gift. Most of the elements under s15 of the theft Act are identical to theft. The difference is deception is needed in an s 15 offences. Since Gomez almost all cases of obtaining goods by deception will also be thefts. 80127410 1

The above preview is unformatted text

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • Over 150,000 essays available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Over 180,000 student essays
  • Every subject and level covered
  • Thousands of essays marked by teachers

Related AS and A Level Sources of Law

  1. The first issue that arises here is A's act of taking his father's railway ...

    The mens rea of this offence includes dishonesty, laid under Section 2 of Theft Act 1968. To determine dishonesty, the Ghosh test applies. It should be established that A's act was dishonest according to the standards of ordinary reasonable people.

  2. To advise Reggie, it is necessary to look at the law of adverse possession. ...

    Even so, this argument may not be strong enough to help Reggie win the title of the property. In conclusion, Reggie would be able to claim the land if he can prove that in 1979, there was a 'new' adverse possession and the 12 years of limitation period had passed (1979-1993)

  1. Commercial law discussion - 'Transfer of Title by a Non-Owner'.

    or transfer were a mercantile agent in possession of the goods...with the consent of the owner.' And finally the eighth exception is 'motor vehicles subject to a hire purchase or conditional sale agreement'- Part III, ss27-29 of the Hire-Purchase Act 1964 provides an important exception to the 'nemo dat' rule.

  2. Sanctions available in criminal Law

    to meet rules set by the court within the community which could be enforced for two years, for example an individual charged for nuisance behaviour having a curfew between the hours of 7pm and 7am, which would restrict the offender from leaving their house during those times, and restricting the chance of a repeat offence.

  • Over 180,000 essays
    written by students
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to write
    your own great essays

Marked by a teacher

This essay has been marked by one of our great teachers. You can read the full teachers notes when you download the essay.

Peer reviewed

This essay has been reviewed by one of our specialist student essay reviewing squad. Read the full review on the essay page.

Peer reviewed

This essay has been reviewed by one of our specialist student essay reviewing squad. Read the full review under the essay preview on this page.