Theft Act 1968

Different Acts with the sections and sub-sections can all get very confusing. So, here is a one-post guide to the Theft Act 1968.

s1 - 'A person is guilty of theft is he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.'
Don't worry, this section is very simple once you break it down, and actually has no substance other than pulling the various sections together in a rag-tag definition of theft. All that is really saying is theft has 5 sections, which a person has to satisfy for he/she to be guilty of theft. These sections are described below.

s2 - Dishonesty (part of the mens rea)
(No statutory definition)
3 Areas which the Theft Act does not consider dishonest:
• D has belief he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person,
• D knew he would have the other's consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it,
• the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.
Cases to illustrate this: R v Turner (no. 2) (1971), R v Small (1987), R v Ghosh (1982)

s3 - Appropriation (part of the actus reas)
'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 the right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.'
Cases to illustrate this: R v Lawrence (1971), R v Morris (1983), R v Gomez (1991), R v Hinks (2001)

s4 - Property (part of the actus reas)
'"Property" includes moeny and all other property real or personal, includuing things in action and other intangiable property.'
Cases to illustrate this: Oxford v Moss (1979)

s5 - Belonging to Another (part of the actus reas)
'Property shall be regarded as belonging to any other person having possession or control of it, or having in it any propreitary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest.'
Cases to illustrate this: R v Turner (no. 2) (1971), R v Hall (1972), Davidge v Bunnett (1984), R v Wain (1995), Attorney-General Reference (no. 1 of 1983), R v Gilks (1972)

s6 - Intention to Permanently Deprive (part of the mens rea)
s6 (1) - 'D intends to treat the thing as his own regardless of the others rights' 'Borrowing an item until all the goodness has gone out of it is equivalent to an outright taking'
s6 (2) - 'Dealing with anothers property in such a manner that he knows he is risking its loss'
Cases to illustrate this: R v Velumyl (1989), R v Cahill (1993), DPP v Lavender (1994), R v Marshall (1998), Fernandez (1996), R v Lloyd (1985), R v Easom (1971)

Links to posts with full cases:
http://you-learn-something-new.blogspot.com/2008/12/key-cases-actus-reas-theft.html - Key Cases - Actus Reas Theft