Sec. 378 defines “Theft”.

In theft, the accused takes the movable property out of

the possession of a person without that person’s consent.

#The accused does not obtain the consent.

#In theft, only dishonest intention is seen in the act of accused.
#Theft can be committed only in case of movable property.
#Theft is without any force or violence.
MORRIS [1983] 3 ALL ER 288

D had switched the price labels of two items on the shelf in a

supermarket. He had then put one of the items, which now had a
lower price on it, into a basket provided by the store for shoppers
and taken the item to the check- out, but had not gone through the
check- out when he was arrested. He was convicted of theft. The
house of lords upheld his conviction on the basis that D had
appropriated the items when he switched the labels.
Lawrence [1972] AC 626; [1971] Cr App rep 64

An Italian student, who spoke very little English, arrived at Victoria

Station and showed an address to Lawrence who was a taxi driver. The
journey should have cost 50p, but Lawrence
told him it was expensive. The student got out a £1 note and offered it to
the driver. Lawrence said it was not enough and so the student opened his
wallet and allowed Lawrence to help himself to another £6. Lawrence put
forward the argument that he had not appropriated the money, as the
student had consented to him taking it. Both the Court of Appeal and the
House of Lords rejected this argument and held that there was
appropriation in this situation.
Gomez [1993] 1 All er 1

Gomez was the assistant manager of a shop. He persuaded the manager to

sell electrical goods worth over £17,000 to an accomplice and to accept
payment by two cheques, telling
the manager they were as good as cash. The cheques were stolen and had
no value. Gomez was charged and convicted of theft of the goods
Hinks (2000) 4 All er 833
Hinks was a 38-year- old woman who had befriended a man who had a low IQ
and was very naive. He was, however, mentally capable of understanding the
concept of ownership and of making a valid gift. Over a period of about eight
months Hinks accompanied the man on
numerous occasions to his building society where he withdrew money. The total
was about £60,000 and this money was deposited in Hinks’ account. The man
also gave Hinks a television set. She was convicted of theft of the money and
the TV set. The judge directed the jury to consider whether the man was so
mentally incapable that the defendant herself realised that ordinary and decent
people would regard it as dishonest to accept a gift from him
Kelly and Lindsay [1998] 3 All er 741

Kelly was a sculptor who asked Lindsay to take body parts from the Royal
College of Surgeons where he worked as a laboratory assistant. Kelly then made
casts of the parts. They were convicted of theft and appealed on the point of law
that body parts were not property. The
Court of Appeal held that, though a dead body was not normally property, the
body parts were property as they had acquired ‘different attributes by virtue of
the application of skill, such as dissection or preservation techniques, for
exhibition or teaching purposes’.
Possession or control

The possession or control of the item does not have to be lawful. Where B has
stolen jewellery from A and subsequently C steals it from B, B is in possession
or control of that jewellery and C can be charged with stealing it from B. This is
useful where it is not known who the original owner is, as C can still be guilty
of theft. This wide definition of ‘belonging to’ has led to the situation in which
an owner was convicted of stealing his own car.
Turner (No 2) [1971] 2 All er 441

Turner left his car at a garage for repairs. It was agreed that he would pay for
the repairs when he collected the car after the repairs had been completed.
When the repairs were almost finished the garage left the car parked on the
roadway outside their premises. Turner used a spare key to take the car during
the night without paying for the repairs. The Court of Appeal held that the
garage was in possession or control of the car and so Turner could be guilty of
stealing his own car.
Property got by a mistake

In Attorney- General’s Reference (No 1 of 1983) [1985] 3 All ER 369, the facts
were that D’s salary was paid into her bank account by transfer. On one
occasion her employers mistakenly overpaid her by £74.74. She was acquitted
by the jury of theft, but the prosecution sought a ruling on a point of law,
namely, assuming that she dishonestly decided not to repay the £74.74, would
she have been guilty of theft? The Court of Appeal held that she was under an
‘obligation to make restoration’, and if there was an intention not to make
restoration, then the elements of theft were present.
In Small [1987] Crim LR 777, D took a car. He said he believed it was
abandoned. It had been parked in the same place without being moved for two
weeks. Also it appeared abandoned because the doors were unlocked, the keys
were in the ignition, there was no petrol in the tank, the battery was flat, one of
the tyres was flat and the windscreen wipers did not work. D put petrol in the
tank and managed to start it. When he was driving it he suddenly saw police
flashing their lights at him. At that point he panicked and ran off, but he claimed
that until he saw the police he had never thought that it might be a stolen car. He
was convicted, but the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction because the
question was whether D had (or might have had) an honest belief that the owner
could not be found and there was evidence that he might have believed the car
was abandoned.
Ghosh [1982] 2 All er 689

Ghosh was a doctor acting as a locum consultant in a hospital. He claimed fees

for an operation he had not carried out. He said that he was not dishonest as he
was owed the same amount for consultation fees. The trial judge directed the
jury that they must apply their own
standards to decide if what he did was dishonest. He was convicted and
appealed against the conviction.

The Ghosh test: whether according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and
honest people what was done was dishonest?
Criticism of Ghosh Test

 The Ghosh test leads to longer and more difficult trials.

 The idea of standards of ordinary reasonable and honest people is a fiction.
 The Ghosh test is unsuitable in specialised cases.
 It allows for a ‘Robin Hood’ defence.
If all the elements of theft are present, the motive of D is not relevant. So a
modern- day Robin Hood stealing to give to the poor could be guilty of theft. D
does not have to gain anything from the theft, so destroying property belonging
to another can be theft, although it is also, of course, criminal damage. Theft can
also be charged where D does not destroy the other’s property but throws it
away. For example, if D threw a water proof watch belonging to another into
the sea, this could be theft.
D likes a painting which is hanging in a friend’s home. He
asks the friend how much it is worth and is told that it is only a copy, worth less
than £100, but it was painted by the friend’s grandmother and is of sentimental
value. A few days later D takes the painting without the friend’s consent but
leaves £200 in cash to pay for it. D’s taking of the painting may be considered
dishonest, even though he left more than the cash value of it.
Further reading
Books
Ormerod, D and Williams, D, Smith’s Law of Theft (9th edn, Oxford University
Press, 2007).

Articles
Beatson, J and Simester, A P, ‘Stealing one’s own property’ (1999) 115 LQR
372.
Gardner, S, ‘Property and theft’ (1998) Crim LR 35.
Griew, E, ‘Dishonesty: the objections to Feely and Ghosh’ (1985) Crim LR 341.
Halpin, A, ‘The Test for Dishonesty’ (1996) Crim LR 283.
Extortion:
1. Sec. 383 defines “Extortion”.
2. In extortion, the accused compels a person to handover the
property. The accused obtains consent of the owner/possessor of the
property by using force and violence.

3. In extortion, besides dishonest intention, the accused puts the

owner/possessor in fear of injury and even to cause death.

4. Extortion can be committed in respect of any property, movable or

immovable, securities, money, etc.

5. Extortion includes theft + force and sometimes violence

Zerei [2012] EWCA crim 1114
D and another man in a car park approached V, whom they knew, and
told him they were going to take his car. D then punched V and pulled out
a knife, while the co- defendant held V, and took V’s car keys. They then
drove off in the car. The car was found soon afterwards, abandoned
about one kilometre away. D was convicted of robbery but the conviction
was quashed on appeal.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had misdirected the jury on
the issue of intention to permanently deprive. The judge had given the
jury the impression that a forcible taking was enough to show an intention
to permanently deprive. This was not the law. The judge had also failed
to deal with the relevance of the car being abandoned by D after a short
time. D was also convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and
that conviction was upheld.
Important Points of Robbery:
Robbery is an aggravated form of theft or extortion. If there is no theft or no
extortion, there is no robbery.

But in a practice it will perpetually be a matter of doubt whether a particular act

of robbery was a theft or extortion.

A large proportion of robberies will be half theft, half extortion. A seizes Z,

threatens to murder him, unless he delivers all his property, and begins to pull of
Z ornaments. Z in terror begs A will take all he has, and spare his life, assists in
taking of his ornaments, and delivers them to A. Here, such ornaments as A took
without Z’s consent is taken by theft
Those which Z delivered from fear of death or acquired by extortion. It is by no
means improbable that Z’s right arm bracelet may have been obtained by theft
and left arm bracelet by extortion; that the taka in Z’s pant may have been
obtained by theft and those in his turban by extortion.
When theft is robbery:
Before theft can amount to robbery,—

Firstly:
The offender must have voluntarily caused or attempted to cause to any person
death or hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of instant death or of instant hurt or of
instant wrongful restraint,

Secondly:
This must be in order to the committing of theft, or in committing of theft, or in
carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft
Thirdly:

The offender must voluntarily cause or attempt to cause to any person hurt, etc.,
for that end, that is in order to committing theft or for carrying away or
attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft,

Fourthly:

The offender must voluntarily attempt one or any of the above acts.
When extortion is robbery:

Similar to the above point, extortion becomes robbery if the offender at the time
of committing the extortion is in the presence of the person put in fear and
commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, or of
instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other, and,
by so putting in fear induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver
up the thing or property extorted.
Corcoran v Anderton [1980] crim lR 385

One defendant hit a woman in the back and tugged at her bag. She let go of it
and it fell to the ground. The defendants ran off without it (because the woman
was screaming and attracting attention). It was held that the theft was complete
so the defendants were guilty of robbery.
Force or threat of force

In Dawson and James (1976) 64 Cr App R 170, one of the defendants

pushed the victim, causing him to lose his balance, which enabled the other
defendant to take his wallet.

Bentham [2005] UKhl 18

D put his fingers into his jacket pocket to give the appearance that he had a gun
in there. He then demanded money and jewellery. He was charged with robbery
and pleaded guilty.
Force or threat of force

In Dawson and James (1976) 64 Cr App R 170, one of the defendants

pushed the victim, causing him to lose his balance, which enabled the other
defendant to take his wallet.

Bentham [2005] UKhl 18

D put his fingers into his jacket pocket to give the appearance that he had a gun
in there. He then demanded money and jewellery. He was charged with robbery
and pleaded guilty.