PROPERTY OFFENCES 1:

THEFT
Prof William Wilson, Criminal law

Video Transcript
Property Offenses 1: theft. An introduction to analyzing theft problems using the Statute. All of the
offenses we have covered so far are offenses against the person. These are offenses in which the
defendant somehow harms the victim's body or bodily interests, including at its worst, killing them.
The offenses we shall examine now are offenses against the victims' interests in property. The
main offenses are listed on the slide: theft, burglary, fraud, and criminal damage.
This lecture covers theft. Theft is a statutory offense. Major elements are defined in Section 1 of
the Theft Act 1968. Read this section carefully. A person is guilty of theft if he dishonesty
appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of
it. This is your starting point for analyzing any problem question. If you want to analyze whether the
defendant committed theft of th victim's property, apply the Statute to the fact and see where it
takes you. Starting with the Actus Reus of theft, Section 3 defines what appropriation means.
Section 4 defines what property means, and Section 5 defines what is meant by property belonging
to another.
As with all offenses to analyze your problem, start with the Actus Reus, and decide whether it has
been committed. Then you decide whether the fault element is present. In both cases, you need to
analyze the facts of the problem to make this call. For theft, the Actus Reus is appropriating
property belonging to another person. The Mens Rea or fault element is dishonesty coupled with
an intention to permanently deprive the other person of their property.
Here is an example which you'll find in your textbook. It doesn't look like theft, does it? Take a look
at this example. Adam, hairstylist to the stars, is asked by his friend, Demien, an artist, if Adam
would be prepared to collect and sell Demien the hair of various celebrities for a future artistic
composition. Adam says he will think about it. A few days later, following a visit from the famous
pop group, Brass Monkeys, Adam telephones Demien and says he will sell Demien the discarded
hair of the group members for £5,000.
An hour later, he changes his mind and throws the hair away. Has Adam stolen the hair? As I said,
it doesn't look like theft, does it? Your job as a lawyer is to make sure this requires you to apply the
Statute. Starting with the Actus Reus, has Adam appropriated property belonging to another
person? This depends on the answer to three separate questions based upon the facts of our
problem. Question one: is discarded hair property? Question two: if it is property, has Adam
appropriated it and if so, how? Question three: if he has appropriated the hair, did this hair belong
to another person when he appropriated it and if so, who?
The first question we ask is: is hair property? Look at Section 4, it tells us that property includes
money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible
property. Well, clearly, hair is not money, and it is not real property, which means land, is then
personal property, like a wallet, a key or a car is personal property. Clearly, before it has been cut,
it is not personal property, but part of a person's body. Does it become personal property simply

Page 1 of 3
because it has been cut and fallen to the floor? You'll find the answer to that question in the Actus
Reus section of topic 12.
Question two. So the next question that we ask is if Adam has appropriated the hair. This depends,
of course, on what appropriation means. You probably think it means has Adam taken it, but let's
look at what Section 3 says. Section 3: 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 a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.
As you can see, appropriation is a much wider concept than simply a taking. Section 3 tells us that
you can appropriate property even when you've combined innocently, as Adam has done here
when he cuts this hair. Section 3 tells us the appropriation means simply assuming rights of
ownership over the property. This starts to look bad for Adam since he's done two things with the
hair that only owners are allowed to do. First, he's offered to sell it. Second, he's thrown it away.
One way or the other, he seems to have appropriated the hair. Assuming, of course, it counts as
property.
Question three, Adam can only steal the hair if it belongs to someone else, does it? If so, who?
Section 5 describes property as belonging to any person having possession or control of it or
having any proprietary right or interest, not being an equitable interest, or rising only from an
agreement to transfer or grant an interest. Forget about that last little bit. Property belongs to any
person having possession or control of it or having any proprietary right or interest in it.
So the answer to this question of who it belongs to is not at all obvious. First, it might belong to the
group, after all, it came from their heads. Does that not give them a proprietary right or interest in it
that's required by Section 5? Second, it might belong to no one at all since the hair and any
interest in it seem to have been abandoned in the shop by the group members. Again, it might
belong to Adam since he was instrumental in turning it from body into the property and it was
abandoned in his shop, so he is now in possession or control of it, within the meaning of Section 5,
who does the hair belong to? You'll find the answers to these questions in the Actus Reus section
of topic 12.
Now, we turn to the Mens Rea. Question one: does Adam, when he appropriates the property,
intend to permanently deprive the owner, whoever it is of it? Let's have a look at Section 6, but
before we do that, I want to explain to you what an intention to permanently deprive means. An
intention to permanently deprive the other means exactly that. A person does not commit theft of
property if their intention is not to take the property permanently. That is if they simply want to
borrow the property or use it temporarily.
However, Section 6 provides for 2 situations where an intention to permanently deprive exists
despite appearances to the contrary. Look at Section 6. Section 6 tells us that the person is to be
treated as having an intention to permanently deprive the owner of his property. If his intention is to
treat the thing as his own to dispose of, regardless of the other's right. Forget the rest of Section 6,
it's not relevant to our case.
In this case, the prosecution may say that by offering the hair’s sale, offering the hair away, Adam
does show that his intention is to treat the thing the hair that is as his own to dispose off,
regardless of the true owners' rights, so it comes within Section 6. You will need to read topic 12
Mens Rea to help you decide whether this element may be present. Second question on Mens
Rea: was Adam dishonest in what he did? Look at Section 2(1).
Section 2(1) tells us what dishonesty is not. It doesn't tell us what it is, it tells us what it's not. It
says, "An appropriation is not dishonest when a person appropriates property in the belief, (a), that
he has, in law, the right to deprive the other of it on behalf of himself of a third person, or (b), that
he would have the others consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of

Page 2 of 3
it, or (c), that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable
steps."
The question that we're asking is does Adam or may Adam have a one of the three beliefs? Now,
Adam may well argue here that here he was not determined first because Section 2(1)(a), he
thought he can do what he likes with the hair. After all, it had been left in his shop, or perhaps,
because of Section 2(1)(b), he thought the band members would consent to him taking it. Why
wouldn't they? Did they want the hair back? If all else fails, he may argue that ordinary people
would not find him to have been dishonest, which is the standard test for dishonesty and theft.
Once again, to help you understand this test and Section 2, you will need to look at topic 12, 1, 2.
Concluding remark. I hope this lecture helped you to understand that when analyzing theft
problems, you need to start with the Statute and to use your topic reading to help you analyze your
way through to conclusion on theft problems.

Page 3 of 3