Problems with the law on Theft
The offence of theft is described in s1 Theft Act 1968 which states that, “A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”. As can be seen by the date of the statute, 1968, it has been in force for a long time, but there have been many criticisms levelled at the current law on theft.
Firstly, the range of elements that make up the actus reus have developed some flaws over time. The actus reus of theft requires that the defendant appropriates property belonging to another. The issue of appropriation has raised a major issue over recent years. This being the apparent consent to any appropriation. The first case where this problem featured was in the case of Lawrence. In this case, Lawrence, a cab driver helped himself to an extortionate charge, after the Italian student who got in his cab presented him with his wallet. The Italian student was not familiar with English currency, which is why he asked Lawrence to help himself to the correct fare. Despite Lawrence arguing the student giving him consent to taking the money it was still held to be an appropriation. Later, Gomez urged his employer to accept stolen cheques as payment for electrical goods. Even though the manager had to consented to the transaction, it was still held to be an appropriation. The dilemma recurred in Hinks. In this case Hinks accepted lavish gift from a naïve, simple minded man. This again was held to be an appropriation, even though the “victim” understood the concept of gifts. This ruling was for policy reasons to protect those who are vulnerable. However, the major condemnation aimed at these three cases were that the prosecution had brought the wrong change and that they should have, instead, been charged with Deception offences. As a result these cases have meant the realms of the law on appropriation have had to be unnecessarily widened and complicated to allow for such discrepancies.
