preview

Justin Under S. 1 Of The Theft Act Essay

Better Essays
Open Document

Theft under S (1) Theft Act 19681 defines that the Defendant is liable for theft if he dishonestly appropriated property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. Justin under S (1) of the Theft Act 19682 is liable for theft as he aims to transfer money from his previous employer’s bank account to his own account without any permission. In order for a person to be liable for the offence of Theft five concepts must elaborate. Under S(3) of the Theft Act 19683, his actions must be appropriate. In Justin’s actions, there is not a careful consideration. A leading case of appropriation is R v. Morris.4 In R v. Morris, there were two parts to the House of Lord’s decision, first, it is an appropriation to …show more content…

This is no longer good law. Are Justin’s actions appropriate? Definitely, his actions include appropriation as there is an assumption of the rights of the owner, which in this scenario is his previous employer. The fact that Justin has access to his previous employer’s bank account doesn’t exempt him from being liable for theft. Before the Theft Act 1968, the old definition of the offence of larceny required the prosecution to prove that the Defendant took ‘without the consent of the owner’ as it happened in Lawrence [1972] AC 626.5 Therefore, if the owner permitted or allowed to the defendant to take the property, was no offence. Reference to consent was replaced by the Theft Act 1968. Also, in relation to Justin, there was appropriation before he had withdrawn the money, as based on the case of Pitham and Hehl (1976),6 the defendant can appropriate without physically touching the property. Section (4) (1) Theft Act provides that ‘Property’ includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property. The defendant must under S(2) of the Theft Act 1968 act dishonestly. Has Justin acted

Get Access
Related
Get Access