ASSESSMENT 1 Legislation relating to the theft

Running head: LEGISLATION REGULATING THE OFFENCE OF THEFT
LEGISLATION REGULATING THE OFFENCE OF THEFT
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author note

1
LEGISLATION REGULATING THE OFFENCE OF THEFT
ASSESSMENT 1
Legislation relating to the theft
The crime of theft, as embodied in Section 1(1) of Theft Act, 1968, entails that the
individual is held to be guilty of the offence of theft in case the individual take property
dishonestly that is owned by another individual with the motive to deprive the owner
permanently of it1. Subsections 2-6 of the said act deliver elements that are required for
constituting the offense of theft in the country of the United Kingdom2. Therefore the actus reus
and mens reus are the two essentials ingredients of crime. The actus reus of the offense of theft
comprises of property, appropriation, and belonging to other individuals. The mens reus of the
offense of theft consists of intent to deprive the owner permanently and also dishonesty3. The
paper will evaluate the contemporary position of law on the element of dishonest appropriation
critically in addition to that discussing the issues which tend to the contemporary progress in the
zone of legislation.
Dishonesty, as enumerated in Section 2 of the act, state that the opposite party will not be
treated to be dishonest in case he considers that he has authority to do the same and have faith
that he has permission from the owner of the property or is the owner cannot be found. However,
1 Theft Act, 1968
2 Coulton, Richard, Matthew Mauger, and Christopher Reid. Stealing Books in Eighteenth-
Century London. (Springer, 2016).
3 Gogo, Kato, and Odimabo Soboma. "Evidential Hurdles in the Prosecution of Crude Oil
Thieves in Nigeria: Lessons From MT Anuket Emerald v. FRN (2017) LPELR-42326
(CA)." (2018)Humberside Journal of Law & Soc. Sc 8.1.

2
LEGISLATION REGULATING THE OFFENCE OF THEFT
the term dishonesty in the perspective of theft is not defined clearly, and what actions will not be
amounting to dishonest act4. Nevertheless, the act which does not constitute dishonesty can be
outside the scope and ambit of Section 2 of the said act leaving the court to determine as to the
material of fact in case the opposite party has been guilty of the dishonest act. The examination
to ascertain the dishonesty of the individual was enumerated in the case of R v Ghosh [1982]
EWCA Crim 1053, 3 W.L.R 110, in addition to that ascertaining in two segments until the case
of Ivey was objective and subjective5. Therefore the examination of dishonesty should consider
whether the conduct is of character that is considered to be dishonest by the reasonably prudent
person. In addition to that, would alleged individual realized that the act he was committing by
those settled standards is regarded as dishonest.
Therefore although the Supreme Court delivers clarity for the dishonest act, the deficit of
comprehension resulting in the judgment which can differ from one jury to another.
The appropriation includes the presumption of the entitlement of the actual owner of the
property, as defined under Section 3(1) of Theft Act, 19686. The property, as defined under
Section 4(1) of the said act, affords the property that involves money, personal or real things, and
4 Singh, Pragya, and Shashwat Singh. "AN AFFAIR OF THE ART: CONTEMPORARY
REFLECTIONS ON THE LEGAL DIMENSIONS OF INTERNATIONAL ART THEFT."
(2019) Art Antiquity & Law 24.3: 235-263.
5 R v Ghosh [1982] EWCA Crim 1053, 3 W.L.R 110
6 Houser, Rick A. Counseling and educational research: Evaluation and application. (Sage
Publications, 2019).

3
LEGISLATION REGULATING THE OFFENCE OF THEFT
intangible property. In order to constitute the offense of theft, it is necessary that the property in
which the subject matter of theft must belong to another individual having the control or
possession over the same. The term dishonesty, as defined in theft, is the appropriation of the
property that belongs either by means of control or possession by another with the intent of
depriving him permanently7. The term intention to deprive permanently is the individual deal
with the property as his own irrespective of the right of ownership. Therefore the Theft Act led to
the crime of theft. There are five elements that require to satisfy the offense of theft. The five
elements involve dishonesty that is the appropriation that is taking of the property that is
possessed by another individual. In addition to that; there should be a presence of intention that
is mens reus to deprive another that is the owner of the property permanently.
Section 2 of the theft Act, 1968 specifies that dishonestly taking of the property that
belongs to another individual along with the criminal intent of depriving the owner permanently
therefore the appropriation of property is not amounting to theft is the individual doing the act
with the belief that they possess the legal authority to take or appropriate the property.
Furthermore, the owner of the property has knowledge of the act; there is no probability of
finding the actual owner of the property in spite of repeated attempts and after adopting
reasonable steps8. In the case of Ivey v Genting Casinos [2018] AC 391, it is laid down by the
7 Taylor, Emmeline. "Supermarket self-checkouts and retail theft: The curious case of the
SWIPERS." (2016) Criminology & criminal justice 16.5: 552-567.
8 Makanje, Gift Dorothy. "CRIMES INVOLVING DISHONESTY OR MORAL TURPITUDE
IN MALAWI’S ELECTIONS." Journal of African Elections: 108.