this essay will be analysing three different scenarios’, which will involve the Theft Act of 1968. Each scenario will be briefly described and examined considering different statutes and the common law. The first scenario that will be analysed talks about two legal tenants, Andy and Peter, whom are short of money to buy food. Consequently, Andy digs up the front lawn of the property and sells it to a garden centre to recover money which he then hands to Peter, while Peter decides to sell the antique fireplace of the property without the knowledge of Andy.
As both of them are tenants of the house means that they are in possession of the property but do not own it. However, Andy has dug up and sold the front lawn breaching section 4 of the Theft Act 1968. Section 4 of the Act says that property in relation to land, things growing wild and wild creatures have certain exceptions while any other property can be stolen. ("Theft Act 1968") Therefore, Andy being the legal tenant of the property has implied possession on it but does not own it and is unable to be guilty of theft, even though he had the intention of permanently depriving the landlord of his land. Section 4 (2) (c) of the theft act says that a person cannot steal land, or things forming part of land and severed from it by him or by his directions, except in some circumstances, for this case: when being in possession of the land under a tenancy, he appropriated whole or part of any fixture or structure let to be used with the land and when he is not in possession of the land and appropriates anything forming part of the land by severing it or causing it to be severed, or after it has been severed. (Ormerod and Laird) By the other hand, Peter is guilty because he sells an item of the property to reward himself as the antique fireplace is counted as furniture belonging to the property of the landlord and Peter has deprived him from it. The act of conduct of a criminal act, known also as actus reus, in theft is the appropriation of property belonging to another and in the case of Peter it is clearly visible as he appropriates the fireplace as his own without the consent of the legal owner. Section 3 of the Theft act defines appropriation as “any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner”. (Legislation.gov.uk) Here can also be applied the effect of Gomez as “anyone doing anything whatever to property belonging to another, with or without the authority or the consent of the owner”. Thus, to establish if Andy or Peter are guilty of theft, there must be established five elements in the crime they have committed. The first is “Appropriation” s.3(1) as any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner. The second is “of property” s.4(1) which includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property. The third is “belonging to another” s.5(1) described as someone who has possession or control of the property, with proprietary rights or interests. Last but not least, “Dishonestly” s.2 and finally s.6, with intention to permanently deprive. (Ormerod and Laird) This scenario is similar to the case of R v Lavender [1994] Crim LR 297, where the defendant removed some doors owned by the council installing them in a flat also owned by the council. In this case as Peter did, the defendant had the intention of permanently deprive under S.6 (1) as he treated the doors as his own regardless of the owner’s right. As Peter did with the fireplace. Here the mens rea, the guilty mind, is dishonesty and intention to permanently deprive. ("R V Lavender" [1994] Crim LR 297)
Moving to the second scenario, Sian sees a painting she likes in an art gallery and decides to take it home without paying but with the intention of returning it back to the gallery once she has finished enjoying it. In this case Sian removing the painting from the art gallery without the authority of the owner, might demonstrate the breach in section 11 of the theft Act 1968, which clarifies the criminal offence of removing an article from a place open to the public or its grounds without lawful authority the whole or part of an article displayed, (in this case the painting) or kept for display to the public in the building or that of it or its grounds shall be guilty of an offence. (Ormerod and Laird) Thus, applying this section to Sian’s case she might be guilty of theft or robbery. However, as will be discussed throughout this essay, section 11 will not be the offence committed by Sian. This section of the theft act can be applied only to thefts that occur indoor to a building and the defendant’s access to the building must be in order to view the building itself or for a collection taking part inside of it. Where the articles on exhibit must be payed or just viewed, not be taken or borrowed. (Legislation.gov.uk)
In this case the actus reus of the offence is the removal of the article from the art gallery. However, Sian has not had the intention of permanently depriving the painting from the building but of keeping it for her pleasure for a couple of years. When Sian entered the art gallery she did not enter it as a trespasser as she went with intention of viewing a painting. Moreover, as the painting which Sian went to view was for sale, section 11 of the Theft Act 1968 cannot be applied in this case. As a matter of fact, regarding commercial exhibits, the section does not apply if the collection is ‘made or exhibited for the purpose of effecting sales or other commercial dealings. This restriction was made to avoid enlarging the removal of articles from places open to the public offence, affirming that deprivation if temporary should not be criminal. (Theft Act 1968) Thus, Sian is not guilty of section 11 of the theft act. Additionally, she might not be guilty neither of section 22 of the Theft Act 1968 of handling stolen goods as it can be applied only within four conditions. The painting should have been stolen contrary to section 1 of the theft act 1968, by fraud, blackmail or money withdrawn dishonestly. Section 1 of the theft act says that there should be the intention of permanently depriving the other of property. Nevertheless, Sian’s intention was to enjoy the painting for a few years at which time she would have returned it to the gallery. (E-lawresources.co.uk)
The third and final scenario which will be analysed in this essay is about the defendant Jim, which steals a first purse from a hand bag of a woman at an airport and once he noticed she was chasing him he stops running and hits her in the mouth. Secondly, he approached another women and snatched her bag as he was not satisfied with the money found in the first purse. He then makes off with the bag. For this scenario the act that will be analysed is robbery under section 8 of the Theft Act 1968. A person shall be guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or during the time of doing so… uses force or seeks to put any person in fear of being subjected to force. In any case, to make sure that robbery has occurred, there must be some sort of theft or attempted theft and all of the elements of theft must be proved. Additionally, there must be the intention of permanently deprive. (Ormerod and Laird) In this case as Jim approached the women with the intention of permanently depriving her by pickpocketing. However, Jim stealing the purse from the hand bag with the absence of any physical contact between him and the woman, would be an issue to determine if it constitutes an act of force or not. For example, in P v DPP 2012 where the defendant snatched a cigarette from the hand of the victim was theft and not robbery as there was no physical contact between them. Plus, this case was regarded analogue to cases of pickpocketing. (Ormerod and Laird) So, from this case, we could plead Jim guilty of theft and not robbery. The case explains that when the woman realised that Jim had stolen her purse, she runs behind him and Jim hits her in the mouth. However, the fact that Jim hits her after gaining possession of her purse still does not amount to robbery. In fact, the act says that robbery occurs when the force used is in a real sense directly part of the theft and to accomplish it. As a matter of fact, force used to retain possession of property not obtained by force would not ordinarily be thought as robbery. As force was not used in order to steal the purse. However, hitting the woman in her mouth may be seen as battery under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as Jim inflicts intentionally unlawful personal violence upon the woman and she had no apprehension of the immediate violence that she was going to receive. The mens rea of battery is an intention to apply force to the body of another or recklessness whether force be so applied. (Theft Act 1968)
Moving on to the second part of this scenario, Jim not being satisfied of the money found he snatches a hand bag from the shoulder of another woman. Here when the victim apprehends that Jim is trying to steal her bag, she resists him by holding to the bag, however Jim continues to use force and insists till the strap broke. For this case, as Jim uses force during the action of stealing the hand bag, is guilty of robbery under the theft act 1968. An example for this part of the scenario is R v Clouden 1987 where the defendant wrenched a shopping bag down the grasp of the victim and ran off with it. Here even though the case was upheld, the wrenching of the bag was amounted to the requisite us of force under section 8(1) of robbery, which says that a person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and… “in order to do so” he uses force on any person…being then and there subjected to force. (Lawteacher.net) In fact, even in the case of Jim, the fact that he continued to pull on the bag without letting it go and running away without it, means that the force used was during the action of stealing the bag. Thus, Jim on the second part of the case is guilty of robbery under section 8 of the Theft Act 1968.