In your view, how satisfactory is the current law on theft?

Authors Avatar

Nicole O’Brien

A Level Law Homework 8 Analysis of Property Offences

(a) In your view, how satisfactory is the current law on theft? (25 marks)

The main purpose of the law of theft is to make members of the public feel secure in possession of their property. The Theft Act 1968, although does this quite well, has many flaws in it.

Regarding the element of appropriation there are mixed weaknesses and strengths. Firstly you can appropriate your own property if it is in control or possession of another. This is generally a good thing. For example in the case of Turner he took his car to be repaired and later drove it off the forecourt without paying for the services. Because it was in control and possession of the mechanic he had stolen his own car.

A confusing element of this element is the mixed definitions of appropriation. Section 3 (1) of the Theft act 1968 defines appropriation as assuming the rights of the owner. Morris says that appropriation must be unauthorised to fall within the meaning of theft and in Gomez the Law Lords came to a very wide, perhaps too wide definition, saying that it was help to mean an assumption of any of the rights of the owner, even if the owner consents. There for if D takes an item from a shop shelf with the intention to avoid payment but before doing so his conscience kicks in and he puts it back he puts it back. In this case he will still be found guilt although technically they have not stolen anything.

However according to Hinks consent of the owner is irrelevant, causing a conflict between civil and criminal law. Because of this even a person who accepts a gift can be treated as appropriating property belonging to another. Possible reform for this may be to follow the civil case of Mazo where the courts held that no theft could take place if a valid gift had been made.

Join now!

The second element of the actus reus is property and this seems more satisfactory that other elements. Firstly the Theft Act 1968 defines property in a suitable broad way, including both real and personal property, intangible and tangible property, as a result gives the public as much protection as possible.

On the other hand it does not include confidential information as in the case of Oxford v Moss. The victim may lose out financially due to a secret being stolen, for example if somebody had a draft for a very good novel and somebody took the paper it ...

This is a preview of the whole essay