Sharpe (1857), D dug up a corpse and sold it to a surgeon for dissection.

D was charged with and convicted of theft, but his conviction

was quashed. As it was said in this case, ‘a body wants no owner’. The same rule applies to body parts.
Kelly [1999]

A Royal College of Surgeons’ technician gave body parts to D, who was an artist. These included human heads, arms, legs and torsos. D
made casts of the body parts which were exhibited in an art gallery. Both D and the technician were convicted of theft, but in their appeal
they contended the body parts did not constitute property. The appeal was dismissed. A corpse, or part of a corpse, is capable of being
property within s.4 of the Theft Act 1968 if it has acquired different attributes by virtue of the application of skill, such as dissection or
preservation techniques, for exhibition or teaching purposes.

Welsh [1974]
A driver was guilty of theft for removing his own urine specimen from a police station. He did this to avoid a conviction for driving with
excess alcohol.

Oxford v Moss 1979

The Defendant, a student of engineering, took an exam paper with the intention of returning the
paper having used the
information gained in order to cheat in his exam.
Held: The confidential information contained in the paper did not amount to intangible property
for the purposes of the Theft Act 1968. It may be an offence however in the Computer Misuse
Act 1990 which deals with people having access to confidential information.
Pitham and Hehl (1977)

The defendant invited two people into his friend’s house while his friend was in prison, and offered to sell them his friend’s furniture.
The Court of Appeal held that this offer constituted an appropriation as it was an assumption of one of the rights of ownership, namely
the right to sell.

Lawrence [1972]
An Italian student took a lift in a taxi. At the end of the trip, as he did not speak good English, he held out his wallet for the taxi driver to
take the right fare. The taxi driver took far more than the correct fare and was charged and convicted of theft of the money. He appealed
on the basis that the trial judge should have told the jury that there could be no appropriation if the owner consented. The House of Lords
upheld the conviction, stating that the statutory definition of appropriation did not include the words ‘without the owner’s consent’. So
even if the student had truly consented to the taking of the money it had still been appropriated by the taxi driver.
Morris [1984]
The defendant had swapped price tags on a tin of beans in a supermarket in order to purchase the beans at a lower price. He was arrested
by a store detective before reaching the checkout and charged with theft of the can. Upholding the conviction, the House of Lords
concluded that it was of the essence of an appropriation that the act be by way of ‘. Contrary to Lawrence (where taking the money from
the wallet was an appropriation despite the owner’s authority), their Lordships concluded that taking the goods off the shelf was not an
appropriation because self-service shops authorise this act. It was only when the price labels were swapped that an appropriation
occurred, because this was not authorised and was adverse to the owner’s right.
Gomez [1993]

D, the assistant manager of a shop, agreed with his accomplice, R (a customer), to help him acquire goods in exchange for two stolen
cheques. Knowing that the cheques were stolen, D deceived the shop manager into authorising the sale of the goods to the customer in
exchange for the cheques. D was charged with theft contrary to s.1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 and was convicted at first instance. He
appealed, submitting that the goods had been sold under a contract between the customer and the shop, and that there could be no
appropriation of property belonging to another where the act relied upon was a contract of sale passing ownership to the customer. The
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) agreed and allowed D’s appeal against conviction. On appeal by the Crown, the House of Lords
held that the fact that the act was authorised in no way prevented it from being an appropriation. It was not of the essence of an
appropriation that it constituted some form of challenge to, or interference with, the owner’s rights.

Hinks [2001]
In this case D had befriended V, a naive and gullible man, and encouraged him to make her gifts of money from his bank account. She
was convicted of theft, although there was no evidence of duress or deception, or that V had parted with the money otherwise than by
gift. The defence case was that the recipient of a valid gift could not be guilty of theft. Either there is a valid transfer of title or there is an
appropriation. There cannot be both. Lord Steyn said that whether or not V had gifted the money, D, by acquiring title, had appropriated
it. The acquisition of title, on this view, is simply the clearest possible case of ‘assuming rights of ownership’. This was a surprising
decision because the transfer was treated as valid by the civil law – V could not claim the money back in the civil courts as it was a
perfect gift – but it was an invalid transfer by the criminal law. D was guilty of stealing the money, assuming her obtaining of the money
was thought to be dishonest. The same principle applies to other transactions involving the transfer of ownership such as contracts for
sale (Gomez).

R v Turner (No2) (1971)

D drove his car away from a garage without paying for the repairs that had been made to his car. D was convicted of theft and it was held that
the car belonged to the garage as they had lawful control of it. Evidence that D can steal property belonging to himself.

Meredith [1973]
The defendant took his own car from a police car park where it had been impounded. He was indicted for theft. The trial judge directed
the jury to acquit on the ground that the police, although having the possession and control of the car for the purpose of s.5(1), had no
right to retain the car as against him.
Hibbert v McKiernan [1948]
D was a trespasser on land owned by a golf club who collected golf balls lost and abandoned by their owners. He was charged with theft.
D argued that, having been abandoned, the balls belonged to no one: the King’s Bench Divisional Court disagreed. Although the balls no
longer belonged to their previous owners they did belong to the club. Since D was a trespasser, the golf club had the right to exclude him
from the course and, therefore, from the balls. To that extent the club had control of the balls and so they belonged to the club for the
purpose of s.5.
Williams v Phillips (1957)
A householder put refuse out for collection by the local authority refuse workers. It was held by the Divisional Court that such refuse
remained property belonging to the householder until collected, whereupon property passed to the local authority. So refuse workers
helping themselves to such property could be convicted of theft, on the basis that the property had always belonged to someone.
Chodorek v Poland [2017]
The Administrative Court confirmed that a person who uses a debit card at an ATM to withdraw cash commits theft if he has no
overdraft facility and knows he does not have the funds to cover the amount withdrawn. All the elements of the offence are present,
namely a dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. The
property appropriated in this case is money (i.e. personal property), not a thing in action. And, at the time of the appropriation, the money
belonged to the issuing bank and not to him as he was not in credit.
Corcoran v Whent [1977]
This case is a perfect example of how a theft conviction was not possible because the property appropriated no longer belonged to
another person at the time of appropriation. D ate food in a restaurant with a friend. When he left the restaurant, his friend told him that
the meal had not been paid for. D did not go back to pay for the meal although his intentions on entering the restaurant were perfectly
honest. He was later arrested, charged and convicted of theft. D’s conviction was quashed on the ground that although all the elements of
theft were present, they did not coincide. At the time the appropriation (eating) of the property (food) belonging to another (restaurant)
occurred he had no mens rea for theft. At the time the mens rea was formed he did not appropriate property belonging to another for
three simple reasons: (i) one cannot assume rights of ownership over the contents of one’s stomach, (ii) the food was no longer food
(property) it was mush in his stomach and (iii) it belonged to no one, not even him!

R v Wain [1995]

Facts: The defendant, by organising events, raised money for a company which distributed money
among charities. He paid what he had raised into a special bank account and thereafter, with the
consent of the company, into his own bank account. He then dishonestly dissipated the credit in his
account.

Held: The Court of Appeal held that he thereby appropriated property belonging to another because
the jury were entitled to find that he was a trustee of the money collected and had therefore received
it subject to an obligation to retain its proceeds (the successive bank accounts) and deal with them in
a particular way (to hand them over to the company).
Davidge v Bunnett [1984]
The defendant shared a flat with others who gave her cheques to pay their joint gas bill. It was understood that D would have to pay the
cheques into her own bank account before doing so. In fact, D spent the proceeds on Christmas presents. The Divisional Court held that
s.5(3) applied, that D was under a legal obligation to use the proceeds to pay the bill and therefore they were property belonging to
another by virtue of s.5(3).

DPP v Huskinson [1988]

D, the tenant of a bed-sitting room. He fell into arrears of rent and applied for housing benefit.
He only gave about half to his landlord.
Held: There is no obligation to pay housing benefit to the landlord (and no such obligation can
be implied), and accordingly failure to do so is not an offence within the Theft Act 1968.
Whilst the tenant has an obligation to pay his rent to his landlord, he is not obliged to give his
housing benefit directly in satisfaction of any arrears. Not guilty

R v Hall [1973]
Theft contrary to section 1(1) Theft Act 1968, travel agent, contractual obligations
distinguished.

Facts

The defendant travel agent received deposit monies from various clients to pay for
flights to the United States. He paid the monies into the firm’s general account but his
business failed and the clients’ deposit monies were lost. He had never booked the
airline tickets and was unable to pay the clients their monies. He was convicted of theft
and appealed on the basis that the monies did not belong to another for the purposes
of the Theft Act 1968.

Issues

To be convicted of theft, the property appropriated by the defendant must belong to

another person at the time when he appropriates it section 1(1) Theft Act 1968. If a
defendant receives monies from another party who places him under an obligation to
handle the monies in a specific manner, then the monies shall be considered as
belonging to the party who transferred the monies to the defendant under section 5(3)
Theft Act 1968. To be placed under such an obligation within this section, there must
be an arrangement between the parties that the monies should be used in a particular
way, such as placing the monies into a separate account, which would give rise to an
obligation.

Held
The defendant travel agent’s conviction for theft was quashed because although he had
breached his contractual obligations to his clients and could be sued in respect of this
breach, there had been no agreement that he should deal with the monies in a specific
manner, and he was, therefore, under no obligation within section 5(3) Theft Act 1968.

Shadrokh-Cigari [1988]
A bank account was wrongly credited with approximately £286,000 rather than the £286 owing. D took and spent the money. He was
convicted of theft of the money on the basis that it remained property belonging to another, namely the issuing bank.

R V Turner (No2) (1971)

D drove his car away from a garage
without paying for the repairs that had
been made to his car. !
D was convicted of theft and it was
held that the car belonged to the
garage as they had lawful control
of it. Evidence that D can steal
property belonging to himself.