In order to discuss Alan's criminal liability, it is necessary to look at the law of property offences and in particular, theft and deception.

Authors Avatar

CRIMINAL LAW COURSEWORK

MO7911

NAME: JACQUELINE YEE-BING, LEE

STUDENT NUMBER: 01228801

NUMBER OF WORDS: 1,986


In order to discuss Alan’s criminal liability, it is necessary to look at the law of property offences and in particular, theft and deception.

In the UK, the law of theft is to be found in the Theft Act 1968 passed by the Criminal Law Revision Committee. Despite the fact that the 1968 Act was designed to clarify the law making it more understandable and easier to access, the courts encountered a series of problems with interpretation and application. So, part of the Act was repealed and the Theft Act 1978 was passed. In 1996, further problems with the law were found and lead to the passing of the Theft (Amendment) Act 1996 which amends the two earlier Theft Acts.

The first point to note is that in order to find out if there is a theft in any case, we would have to examine if the defendant’s action fit the definition of theft under s.1 Theft Act 1968. Thus, it is important to note the five important elements of theft in every case. They are; dishonestly, appropriates, property, belonging to another and with the intention to depriving the other of it.

The actus reus of theft is appropriating property belonging to another. The offender will have the necessary mens rea if he does this in a dishonest way, intending to permanently deprive the true owner of it.

In Alan’s case, we are told that Alan is an employee of a company supplying cigarettes to shops. Here, it is clear that Alan is holding the cigarettes under the obligation to deal with it or the proceeds of the cigarettes in a special way.  Thus, it is not necessary to look at the element of property and belonging to another as it is clear that the property, the cigarettes, belong to the cigarette company. Neither do we have to examine the factor of dishonestly as this is obviously shown when Alan made an unauthorised roundabout route to his house and leaves some of the boxes at his home.  The issues that we need to look at are, has Alan ‘appropriated’ the property and was he ‘intended to permanently depriving the others of it’.

For an appropriation to arise there had to be an adverse interference or a usurpation of the rights of the real owner. Alan would have appropriated the cigarettes when there is an assumption of any rights of the owner, the cigarette company. Lord Roskill stated clearly that it is enough for the prosecution to prove that just one of the rights of the owner has been assumed. The moment Alan assumed any of the rights of the real owner of the cigarettes, which is in this case, leaving some of the boxes at his home, is sufficient to amount to appropriation.  A simple decision to keep property, unaccompanied by any physical act could amount to an appropriation. ‘An act done with the authority of the company cannot in general amount to an appropriation’ are no longer good law. Following Gomez 1993, an appropriation can occur even though the owner appears to imply or express consent to the taking. Thus, Alan holding the cigarettes for a company can be found guilty of theft when he appropriates the company property for his own benefits or own use and there is no need for the prosecution to prove that Alan’s appropriation of the cigarettes was without the owner’s consent. The appropriation does not occur until Alan forms the dishonest intent. It is this mental act which converts what previously would have been lawful possession into the actus reus of theft.

Join now!

Although Lawrence had clearly broadened the concept of appropriation by encompassing consensual taking, there followed a series of decisions which incorporated a concept of appropriation which recognised the need for some unauthorised act on the part of the defendant. Alan’s case is quite similar to the case of R v. Skipp, where the single appropriation occurred when he diverted from an authorised route with dishonest intent. This was the defendant’s first unauthorised act and could apply to Alan’s case.  

The next issue to look at is ‘intention permanently to deprive’. There is no clear definition for this phrase but ...

This is a preview of the whole essay