Foundation of Criminal Law: Case Scenario of Theft and The Theft Act 1968

This report covers the case scenario of theft and the Theft Act 1968. It discusses the legal system of the UK, the definition of theft, and the essential elements of committing theft. The report analyzes the act of theft committed by Clara and concludes that her act comprises the aspect of dishonest intention.

Foundation of
Criminal Law

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................4
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................7
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................8
INTRODUCTION
The concept of legal system of UK includes the general legislative process, constitution
of UK, system of governance, the structure of hierarchy of courts, provisions of criminal and
civil law, the roles of Judges and counsels. The UK consists 3 different legal systems which are
Northern Ireland, England and Wales and Scotland. The United Kingdom do not have written
constitution and there is no written document which states individuals rights and how the
government acts. There are many sources which comprises constitution, some of them are
written and others are unwritten. This project report covers the case scenario of Theft, The Theft
act was implemented to make this an offence to obtain property by deception. The definition of
theft is given under The Theft Act 1968, a person is guilty for theft if that person possesses
dishonestly the property belonging to another, with intending for permanent deprivation of that
property. An act done dishonestly is must be proved to found guilty of committing theft.
Dishonesty is not defined under any statute, there are 3 instances under theft act where the
principle of dishonesty were not regarded as dishonesty.
MAIN BODY
In this situation Clara is shopping in a supermarket at Chelmbridge. She went in a room
where it is specifically written on the door which states “staff only”. There were some coats

hanging in that room and it is visible to her through a glass panel. She goes in a room and takes
two purses from the pocket of the coat. She continues her shopping and put some of the items in
the store basket and some expensive meat in her own bag. When she was putting expensive meat
in her bag the security guard is looking at her. When she get to know that security guard is
looking at her, she put the meet in store basket fearing the security guard1. She paid for all the
items and leaving the supermarket. Security saw her going to staff room and stops her and tell
about her conduct, that he has seen her going to staff room and putting expensive meat in her
bag. In this case she have done act of theft, the theft is defined under section 1 of The Theft Act
1968, which states that a person will held liable for theft if appropriate dishonestly a property
belonging to someone else with the intention to permanently taking it from that person2. In
relation to this situation Clara have done theft of purse, as per section 1 of this act the situation is
falling under the definition of this act. The act done by her is dishonest and that property belongs
to someone else3. All the essentials of committing theft is fulfilled in this act, she have performed
this act where it was mentioned on the door of that room in which enters. The property belongs
to the staff member as all the cloths and other subjects belong to the staff members. Under
section 4 of The Theft Act 1968 provision for property is given, in this property includes money
and any other property,which is real or personal, this includes things which are in action and
other intangible property. The purse contains money and this falls under first situation of this
definition of the property, the property is real or personal in nature and tangible property which
belongs to one of the staff member of the supermarket. Property belonging to another is defined
under section 5 of The Theft Act 1968, in this the property belonging to someone else is defined
which states that a property belonging to any person who have possession and control of that
property or he have any right of proprietorship over that property4. Clara have stole the property
which was under the possession and have ownership right of someone else. The purse was in the
1 Brodie N, and Tubb K, Illicit Antiquities (Routledge 2020)
2 Smith J, and Ormerod D, Smith's Law Of Theft (2018)
3 Green N, Film Theft In The UK (UK Film Council 2019)
4 Brown L, Theft (2019)

pocket of coat and that coat belongs to the staff member and they have hanged them at safe place
where an ordinary person do if he was employed there as an staff. There was clarification on the
door of that room and she went inside that room where only staff members were allowed to
enter. In case of R v. Turner, D was found guilty of theft for his car taken by himself without
paying to the garage which carry out repair on it. In this case, Clara trespasses store on which it
was written that only staff is allowed to enter and take a purse belonging to someone else is
consider as theft, as related to this case this is not important that the property belongs to any one
but who so ever have possession of it consists of some legal right over that property. In that staff
room the possession of property is of staff and she stole that property from one of the staff
member and buy some stuff from stolen money as well.
She have intention to deprive the property belonging to someone else permanently, the
provision of of permanently depriving the other of it is given under section 6 of The Theft Act
1968. in this section a person who appropriate property which belongs to someone else without
meaning that other person will lose this property permanently. The purse belongs to someone
else and she intentionally appropriate to the purse, where she was not intended to enter and she
have the prior knowledge that these purse belongs to someone else5. She intentionally done this
act and take out from the possession of the real owner of the purse. The money which belongs to
someone else, the first thing given under the definition of property is money and in this situation
she stole money from staff room. This is pity much obvious that everyone carry some money in
the purse. There were many other things present in the purse such as the identification proof,
some medicine, cash, debit or credit cards and other important documents. The things belonging
to someone else and she dishonestly possess the purse from others possession. She stole two
purse from that room which shows that she have pure intentions to stole that purse. She will not
stopping on this, but she have more intentions to stole something. She put some expensive meat
in her bag, and not in store basket. When she fear that the security guard saw her and then she
put that expensive meat in the basket of super market. After that she paid for the things which
were in that basket and went outside that market. When she was going out of market, the security
guard stops her and tell her that he saw her going to staff room and putting the expensive meat in
her bag. She misappropriate the situation and said that she was a security guard from another
super market and asked by the manger of Chelmbridge supermarket to test the efficiency of the
5 Taplin R, Cyber Risk, Intellectual Property Theft And Cyberwarfare (2020)

security guards6. Clara is liable for her act of theft and the essential of theft are covered under her
act. All the act she have done shows her intention for theft and she possesses the property
belonging to someone else. When a property belonging to other is not instantly out of there
possession and they can not use it at that movement because of any act done by him covers under
theft. Clara have committed theft and she have done an act belonging to theft, the act of going to
security room without any permission is itself an illegal act but she have taken purse from pocket
of the coat hanging their, which she definitely know that these belong to the staff member. All
the stuff which was in that room belongs to the staff of that super market. There was no one but
the instruction were given on the door of that room7. Clara possesses the property she was not
have ownership of, and takes with her to dispossess it from the other party. She have all the
wrong intentions for committing theft and she have done other act to commit theft. As she was
putting expensive meat in her bag instead of the basket of super market. She have put that piece
of meat in basket of super market because the security guard saw her. If that guard did not saw
her then she will carry that meat with her by means of theft and did not pay for that piece of
expensive meat. All her act and intentions were matching in to commit theft.
CONCLUSION
From the following report it can be very well summarised that the laws of the country are
formulated in such a way which stands effective as well as govern the every possible types of
crimes which take place in the society. The above disuses case scenario entails the offence of
theft which was committed by ms. Clara as the act done by her comprises the aspect of
dishonest intention. Other than this the acquisition of the belongings of other members in her
possession depicts both her intention as well as the act of theft.
6 Burrows J, and Cooper D, Theft And Loss From UK Libraries (Home Office Police Dep
2019)
7 Maxfield M, and Clarke R, Understanding And Preventing Car Theft (Criminal Justice
Press 2018)

REFERENCES
Brodie N, and Tubb K, Illicit Antiquities (Routledge 2020)
Brown L, Theft (2019)
Burrows J, and Cooper D, Theft And Loss From UK Libraries (Home Office Police Dep 2019)
Green N, Film Theft In The UK (UK Film Council 2019)
Maxfield M, and Clarke R, Understanding And Preventing Car Theft (Criminal Justice Press
2018)
Smith J, and Ormerod D, Smith's Law Of Theft (2018)
Taplin R, Cyber Risk, Intellectual Property Theft And Cyberwarfare (2020)