{"id":5067,"date":"2018-03-07T09:27:00","date_gmt":"2018-03-07T09:27:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2021-09-07T09:12:33","modified_gmt":"2021-09-07T09:12:33","slug":"theft-cases","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/theft-cases.php","title":{"rendered":"Theft Case Summaries"},"content":{"rendered":"

1. APPROPRIATION<\/h2>\n

Lawrence v MPC [1972] AC 626<\/strong><\/h3>\n

An Italian student took a taxi ride for which the proper fare was about 50p.<\/p>\n

He offered the defendant a \u00a31 note, but the defendant said more money was\u00a0needed and proceeded to take a further \u00a31 note and a \u00a35 note from the\u00a0student\u2019s open wallet. The defendant was convicted of theft and appealed\u00a0unsuccessfully to the House of Lords. The defendant argued that he had not\u00a0stolen the money because the victim had consented to its being taken by him.<\/p>\n

Viscount Dilhorne rejected this argument because the student only consented to\u00a0the legal amount being taken and also the defendant\u2019s contention that he should\u00a0have been charged under s15 (obtaining property by deception) and not s1.<\/p>\n

R v Morris, Anderton v Burnside<\/a> [1984] AC 320<\/h3>\n

Morris took two items from supermarket shelves and replaced the correct\u00a0labels with ones showing lower prices. He took the items to the checkout, paid\u00a0the lower price and was then arrested. Burnside took the label off a joint of\u00a0meat and placed it on a more expensive joint. His act was discovered and he was\u00a0arrested before he got to the checkout. Both defendants were convicted.<\/p>\n

Lord Roskill explained that the switching of price labels amounted to\u00a0appropriation because it was an assumption by the defendant of the owner\u2019s right\u00a0to determine what price the goods were to be sold at. If accompanied by mens rea\u00a0it would be theft. Lord Roskill envisaged appropriation as any assumption of any\u00a0right of an owner which amounted to adverse interference with, or usurpation of,\u00a0those rights.<\/p>\n

2. PROPERTY<\/h2>\n

Oxford v Moss<\/a> [1979] Crim LR 119<\/h3>\n

A student borrowed an advance copy of an examination paper, copied the\u00a0questions and then returned the paper. The Divisional Court held that he was not\u00a0guilty of theft on the basis that information could not be stolen. Clearly the\u00a0paper on which the exam questions were typed was property belonging to Liverpool\u00a0University, but there was no evidence that the defendant intended to permanently\u00a0deprive the University of it.<\/p>\n

3. BELONGING TO ANOTHER<\/h2>\n

R v Turner<\/a> (No 2) [1971] 1 WLR 901<\/h3>\n

The defendant removed his car from outside the garage at which it had been\u00a0repaired, intending to avoid having to pay for the repair. The Court of Appeal\u00a0held that the car could be regarded as \u2018property belonging to another\u2019 as\u00a0against the owner, since it was in the possession and control of the repairer. (Note<\/i>: were the same facts to present themselves today, a charge of making off\u00a0without payment contrary to s3 TA 1978 would be more appropriate.)<\/p>\n

Williams v Phillips (1957) 41 Cr App R 5<\/h3>\n

A householder put refuse out for collection by the local authority refuse\u00a0workers. It was held by the Divisional Court that such refuse remained property\u00a0belonging to the householder until collected, whereupon property passed to the\u00a0local authority. Hence, refuse workers helping themselves to such property could\u00a0be convicted of theft, on the basis that the property never became ownerless.<\/p>\n

R v Woodman [1974] QB 758<\/h3>\n

A sold all the scrap metal on certain disused business premises to B, who removed most of it but left some as being too inaccessible to be worth the\u00a0expense of removal. The defendant then entered the premises to take some of this\u00a0scrap and was held to have been rightly convicted of its theft. A continued to\u00a0control the site and his conduct in erecting fences and posting notices showed\u00a0that he intended to exclude others from it.<\/p>\n

R v (Adrian) Small [1987] Crim LR 778<\/h3>\n

The defendant was charged with theft of a car. He claimed that he thought\u00a0that it had been abandoned by the owner because it had been left for over a week\u00a0with the keys in it. The Court of Appeal ruled that he could not be guilty of\u00a0theft if he had an honest belief to that effect, as if the car had been\u00a0abandoned, the owner would not be \u2018deprived\u2019 of it.<\/p>\n

R v Hall<\/a> [1973] 1 QB 496<\/h3>\n

The defendant was a travel agent who had taken money for securing airline\u00a0tickets for customers and not booked them. The defendant paid all the monies\u00a0into the firm\u2019s general trading account. His business collapsed and the money\u00a0was lost. He was convicted of theft of the money when the tickets failed to\u00a0materialise. The Court of Appeal however, held that he was not under an\u00a0obligation under s5(3). Although the defendant had a general obligation to\u00a0fulfil his contract he did not have to deal with those specific notes and\u00a0cheques in a particular way. He was free to use it as he pleased, and was\u00a0therefore not guilty of theft when he was later unable to provide the tickets\u00a0required. Edmund-Davies LJ stated:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201c\u2026 when a client goes to a firm carrying on the business of travel\u00a0agents and pays them money, he expects that in return he will,\u00a0in due course,\u00a0receive the tickets and other documents necessary\u00a0for him to accomplish the trip\u00a0for which he is paying, and\u00a0the firm are \u201cunder an obligation\u201d to\u00a0perform their part to fulfil\u00a0his expectation and are liable to pay him damages\u00a0if they do not.\u00a0But, in our judgment, what was not here established was that\u00a0these clients expected them to \u201cretain and deal with that property\u00a0or its\u00a0proceeds in a particular way,\u201d and that an \u201cobligation\u201d\u00a0to do so\u00a0was undertaken by the appellant.<\/p>\n

We must make clear, however, that each case turns on its own facts.\u00a0Cases\u00a0would, we suppose, conceivably arise where by some\u00a0special arrangement\u00a0(preferably evidenced by documents), the\u00a0client could impose upon the travel\u00a0agent an \u201cobligation\u201d falling\u00a0within section 5(3). But no such special\u00a0arrangement was made\u00a0in any of the seven cases here being considered.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

R v Brewster (1979) 69 Cr App R 375<\/h3>\n

It was held that an insurance broker could be guilty of theft of insurance\u00a0premiums\u00a0collected by him for which he had to account to the insurance\u00a0company.<\/p>\n

A determining factor was that the contract between the defendant and the\u00a0insurance company stated that at all times the premiums were to be the property\u00a0of the company.<\/p>\n

Davidge v Bunnett<\/a> [1984] Crim LR 297<\/h3>\n

The defendant shared a flat with several other people who gave her cheques on\u00a0the understanding that a communal gas bill would be paid with the proceeds. In\u00a0fact, the defendant spent the proceeds on Christmas presents and left the flat\u00a0without giving notice. The Divisional Court held that the defendant was under a\u00a0legal obligation to use the proceeds of the cheques in a particular way (for the\u00a0discharge of the gas bill) and therefore they were property belonging to another\u00a0by virtue of s5(3). This was therefore theft.<\/p>\n

R v Wain [1995] 2 Cr App Rep 660<\/h3>\n

The defendant, by organising events, raised money for a company which\u00a0distributed money among charities. He paid what he had raised into a special\u00a0bank account and thereafter, with the consent of the company, into his own bank\u00a0account. He then dishonestly dissipated the credit in his account. The Court of\u00a0Appeal held that he thereby appropriated property belonging to another because\u00a0the jury were entitled to find that he was a trustee of the money collected and\u00a0had therefore received it subject to an obligation to retain its proceeds (the\u00a0successive bank accounts) and deal with them in a particular way (to hand them\u00a0over to the company).<\/p>\n

A-G\u2019 Reference (No 1 of 1983) [1985] QB 182<\/h3>\n

The defendant, a policewoman, was overpaid. The money was credited to her\u00a0bank account as a result of an error by her employer. The evidence suggested\u00a0that having discovered the overpayment, the defendant simply allowed the money\u00a0to remain in the account. She was charged with theft of the sum overpaid but the\u00a0trial judge directed the jury to acquit. The question of whether a charge of\u00a0theft was possible in such a situation was referred to the Court of Appeal.<\/p>\n

It was decided that provided there was sufficient evidence of mens rea, a\u00a0charge of theft could succeed in such a situation. The defendant had got\u00a0property (the excess payment) by another\u2019s mistake and was under an obligation\u00a0to restore the debt (a chose in action) to her employer. Further, Lord Lane CJ\u00a0suggested that s5(4) only started to operate from the moment the defendant\u00a0became aware of the overpayment.<\/p>\n

R v Shadrokh-Cigari [1988] Crim LR 465<\/h3>\n

The defendant, who was the guardian of a child to whose bank account\u00a0approximately \u00a3 286,000 had been credited in error instead of \u00a3 286, persuaded\u00a0the child to sign authorities instructing the bank to issue drafts credited to\u00a0him. The defendant spent most of the excess money before he was discovered, and\u00a0was convicted of theft of the drafts on the basis that they remained property\u00a0belonging to another, namely the issuing bank.<\/p>\n

The Court of Appeal expressed the view that the conviction for theft was\u00a0sustainable on two grounds: (1) under s5(1) as the bank still had an equitable\u00a0interest in the drafts; therefore the drafts could still be regarded as property\u00a0belonging to another; and (2) under s5(4) as the defendant had obtained the\u00a0drafts as a result of the bank\u2019s mistake, and was under an obligation to restore\u00a0the property or its proceeds.<\/p>\n

R v Stalham [1993] Crim LR 310<\/h3>\n

The defendant was notified that he would be receiving a pay rise of \u00a34,080,\u00a0payment to be in instalments. A transfer of the total sum was made to the\u00a0defendant in error, and he was told that a stop would be put on the transfer,\u00a0and a cheque for the first instalment issued. The cheque was issued, but a stop\u00a0was not put on the transfer. When queried by a wages clerk, the defendant\u00a0expressed the view that he believed it to be a tax rebate. The defendant signed\u00a0a blank cheque which, with his brother\u2019s involvement, was subsequently made out\u00a0to a woman who paid it into her account and gave the proceeds of the cheque to\u00a0the defendant\u2019s brother. On a charge of theft, the defendant had contended that\u00a0the money had not been property belonging to another. He was convicted and\u00a0appealed.<\/p>\n

The appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal held that it was bound to apply\u00a0its previous decision in A-G\u2019s Reference (No 1 of 1983). As in that case, the\u00a0property (the chose in action represented by the right to draw on the account)\u00a0had been transferred as the result of a mistake by the employer. The result was\u00a0that it remained, as against the employee, property belonging to another,\u00a0because there was a legal obligation to make restoration,\u00a0thus the provisions of\u00a0s5(4) could apply.<\/p>\n

THE MENS REA OF THEFT<\/h2>\n

1. DISHONESTY<\/h3>\n

s2(1)(a) \u2013 BELIEF IN LEGAL RIGHT<\/h4>\n

If D mistakenly believes that he owns V\u2019s\u00a0umbrella, his appropriation of it would not be dishonest whether his mistake, or\u00a0ignorance, is of fact or law. Moreover, D will not commit theft where he\u00a0appropriates V\u2019s umbrella in the belief that it belongs to X on whose behalf he\u00a0is acting. Similarly, D would have a defence if he took a bicycle belonging to\u00a0V, in order to recoup a debt, under the erroneous belief that the law permitted\u00a0debts to be recovered in this way. The D\u2019s belief merely has to be honestly\u00a0held, it does not have to be reasonable. As with all subjective tests, the more\u00a0outlandish the D\u2019s honest belief is, the less likely he is to be believed.<\/p>\n

s2(1)(b) \u2013 BELIEF IN THE OTHER\u2019S CONSENT<\/h4>\n

This might apply where D\u2019s car has\u00a0run out of petrol, and D takes a can of petrol from his next-door neighbour V\u2019s\u00a0garden believing that V would have consented had he known. Again the test is\u00a0subjective. But D must believe not only that V would have consented to the\u00a0appropriation but that V would have consented to the appropriation in the\u00a0particular circumstances. D may believe that his next-door neighbour would\u00a0consent to his appropriating a pint of milk from his doorstep when D himself had\u00a0forgotten to leave an order for the milkman; but may believe that his neighbour\u00a0would not consent to D\u2019s appropriating the milk in order to sell it at a profitto a thirsty hitch-hiker who is passing by.<\/p>\n

s2(1)(c) \u2013 BELIEF THAT PROPERTY HAS BEEN LOST<\/h4>\n

Again the test for the D\u2019s\u00a0belief is subjective. As regards the question of what might be required by\u00a0taking reasonable steps to discover ownership will depend partly on the\u00a0identification available, the location in which it is found, and the value of\u00a0the property. A person finding a \u00a310 note in the street may well come within\u00a0this subsection, unless he has just seen it fall from the pocket of V who is\u00a0walking in front of him. Similarly, if D finds a suitcase containing \u00a31m in the\u00a0street one would expect him to make considerable efforts to locate the owner. It\u00a0should be kept in mind that s2(1)(c) is concerned with what the D views as\u00a0reasonable steps.<\/p>\n

S2(2) \u2013 WILLINGNESS TO PAY<\/h4>\n

For example, where D sees V\u2019s newspaper poking out\u00a0of his letterbox, knowing that he\u00a0would not wish to sell it, pulls out the\u00a0newspaper, and leaves its price on V\u2019s doormat, D\u00a0could be guilty of theft.<\/p>\n

R v Ghosh<\/a> [1982] QB 1053<\/h4>\n

The defendant was a consultant at a hospital. He falsely claimed fees in\u00a0respect of an operation that he had not carried out. He claimed that he thought\u00a0he was not dishonest by his standards because the same amount of money was\u00a0legitimately payable to him for consultation fees. The judge directed the jury\u00a0that they must simply apply their own standards. He was convicted of an offence\u00a0contrary to s15 TA 1968 (which uses the same concept \u201cdishonesty\u201d and\u00a0appealed against his conviction). The appeal was dismissed by the Court of\u00a0Appeal. Lord Lane CJ stated:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cIn determining whether the prosecution has proved that the defendant\u00a0was acting dishonestly, a jury must first of all decide whether according to the\u00a0ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people what was done was dishonest.<\/p>\n

If it was not dishonest by those standards, that is the end of the matter and\u00a0the prosecution fails.<\/p>\n

If it was dishonest by those standards, then the jury must consider whether\u00a0the defendant himself must have realised that what he was doing was by those\u00a0standards dishonest. In most cases, where the actions are obviously dishonest by\u00a0ordinary standards, there will be no doubt about it. It will be obvious that the\u00a0defendant himself knew he was acting dishonestly. It is dishonest for a\u00a0defendant to act in a way which he knows ordinary people consider to be\u00a0dishonest, even if he asserts or genuinely believes that he is morally justified\u00a0in acting as he did. For example, Robin Hood or those ardent\u00a0anti-vivisectionists who\u00a0remove\u00a0animals\u00a0from\u00a0vivisection\u00a0laboratories\u00a0are\u00a0acting\u00a0dishonestly, even though they may consider themselves to\u00a0be morally justified in\u00a0doing what they do, because they know that\u00a0ordinary people would consider these\u00a0actions to be dishonest.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

2. INTENTION TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE<\/h3>\n

R v Warner (1970) 55 Cr App R 93<\/h4>\n

The defendant took a tool-box to annoy the owner but panicked and hid it when\u00a0the police were called. He claimed that he intended to replace it as soon as he\u00a0could do so undetected, but the judge directed the jury that an intention to\u00a0keep property indefinitely could amount to theft. The Court of Appeal quashed\u00a0the conviction. (Note: presumably in practice a jury simply might not believe\u00a0such a story.)<\/p>\n

R v Velumyl [1989] Crim LR 299<\/h4>\n

The defendant had taken money from his employer\u2019s safe and claimed that he\u00a0intended to pay it back after the weekend. The Court of Appeal held that he had\u00a0not intended to return the exact coins and notes, and that therefore he was\u00a0properly convicted of theft. (Note: in such cases it would be far better for the\u00a0defendant to contend that he was not dishonest given his intention to replace\u00a0the money with an equivalent fund.)<\/p>\n

s6(1) \u2013 INTENTION TO USE OR DISPOSE OF THE GOODS<\/h4>\n

* Where D abandons property\u00a0belonging to another he may be deemed to intend to permanently deprive that\u00a0other of it, if the circumstances are such that there is little likelihood of\u00a0the owner ever having the property returned to him. For example, D takes V\u2019s\u00a0book and leaves it in a dustbin or on a park bench. D may hope that it is\u00a0returned to V, but it is likely to be regarded as a disposal regardless of V\u2019s\u00a0rights.<\/p>\n

* D may be deemed to have an intention to permanently deprive where he\u00a0borrows another\u2019s property for a period and in circumstances amounting to an\u00a0outright taking. The commonest example given is that involving a season ticket:<\/p>\n

V owns a season ticket entitling him to enter a football match for 21 home\u00a0league games and D takes the ticket at the beginning of the season, uses it to\u00a0attend the games, and returns it to V at the end of the season. Clearly V gets\u00a0his ticket back, but the borrowing of it by D has taken the \u2018value\u2019 out of it,\u00a0and such conduct would amount to theft by virtue of s6(1). (Note: Where D uses\u00a0the ticket to get into one of the 21 games, he may be charged with obtaining\u00a0services by deception contrary to s1(1) TA 1978.)<\/p>\n

R v Lavender [1994] Crim LR 297<\/h4>\n

The defendant removed doors from one council property undergoing repairs and\u00a0used them to replace damaged doors at another council property. It was held that\u00a0this was a \u201cdisposal\u201d under s6(1) because the defendant intended to treat the doors as his own, regardless of the council\u2019s rights\u201d.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Summaries of theft cases covering appropriation, property, belonging to another, the mens rea of theft, intention to permanently deprive, and intention to use or dispose of goods.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[85],"class_list":["post-5067","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cases","tag-uk-law"],"yoast_head":"\nTheft Case Summaries | LawTeacher.net<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Summaries of theft cases covering appropriation, property, belonging to another, the mens rea of theft, intention to permanently deprive, and intention to use or dispose of goods.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/theft-cases.php\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Theft Case Summaries\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Summaries of theft cases covering appropriation, property, belonging to another, the mens rea of theft, intention to permanently deprive, and intention to use or dispose of goods.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/theft-cases.php\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"LawTeacher.net\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-large-logo.webp\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1920\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1080\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/webp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"LawTeacher\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"LawTeacher\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"ScholarlyArticle\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/theft-cases.php#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/theft-cases.php\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"LawTeacher\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e\"},\"headline\":\"Theft Case Summaries\",\"datePublished\":\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/theft-cases.php\"},\"wordCount\":2967,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"UK Law\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Summaries\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/theft-cases.php\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/theft-cases.php\",\"name\":\"Theft Case Summaries | LawTeacher.net\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\",\"description\":\"Summaries of theft cases covering appropriation, property, belonging to another, the mens rea of theft, intention to permanently deprive, and intention to use or dispose of goods.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/theft-cases.php#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/theft-cases.php\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/theft-cases.php#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Theft Case Summaries\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\",\"name\":\"Law Teacher\",\"description\":\"The Law Essay Professionals\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"LawTeacher.net\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Law Teacher\",\"alternateName\":\"LawTeacher.net\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg\",\"width\":250,\"height\":250,\"caption\":\"Law Teacher\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/api.whatsapp.com\/send\/?phone=447723491966&text&type=phone_number&app_absent=0\"],\"description\":\"Law Teacher provides academic writing services for law students throughout the world.\",\"email\":\"contact@lawteacher.net\",\"telephone\":\"+44 115 966 7966\",\"numberOfEmployees\":{\"@type\":\"QuantitativeValue\",\"minValue\":\"51\",\"maxValue\":\"200\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e\",\"name\":\"LawTeacher\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"LawTeacher\"},\"description\":\"LawTeacher.net is the UK's leading provider of academic legal support, offering both writing services and an extensive collection of law study resources for students in the UK and overseas. Founded in 2003 by Grey's Inn graduate Barclay Littlewood, the Company was built on a commitment to excellence, with unique guarantees and a high standard of service from day one. The team includes over 500 UK legally qualified writing experts, with many practising solicitors and barristers, and several former lecturers.\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/gravatar.com\/lawteacherprofile\"],\"knowsAbout\":[\"Contract Law\",\"Criminal Law\",\"Constitutional and Administrative Law\",\"EU Law\",\"Tort Law\",\"Property Law\",\"Equity and Trusts\",\"Jurisprudence\",\"Company Law\",\"Commercial Law\",\"Family Law\",\"Human Rights Law\",\"Employment Law\",\"Evidence\",\"Public International Law\",\"Legal Research and Methods\",\"Dispute Resolution\",\"Business Law and Practice\",\"Civil Litigation\",\"Criminal Litigation\",\"Professional Conduct\",\"Taxation\",\"Wills and Administration of Estates\",\"Solicitors\u2019 Accounts\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/author\/lawteacher\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Theft Case Summaries | LawTeacher.net","description":"Summaries of theft cases covering appropriation, property, belonging to another, the mens rea of theft, intention to permanently deprive, and intention to use or dispose of goods.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/theft-cases.php","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Theft Case Summaries","og_description":"Summaries of theft cases covering appropriation, property, belonging to another, the mens rea of theft, intention to permanently deprive, and intention to use or dispose of goods.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/theft-cases.php","og_site_name":"LawTeacher.net","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet","article_published_time":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1920,"height":1080,"url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-large-logo.webp","type":"image\/webp"}],"author":"LawTeacher","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@LawTeacherNet","twitter_site":"@LawTeacherNet","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"LawTeacher","Estimated reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"ScholarlyArticle","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/theft-cases.php#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/theft-cases.php"},"author":{"name":"LawTeacher","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e"},"headline":"Theft Case Summaries","datePublished":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/theft-cases.php"},"wordCount":2967,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization"},"keywords":["UK Law"],"articleSection":["Case Summaries"],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/theft-cases.php","url":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/theft-cases.php","name":"Theft Case Summaries | LawTeacher.net","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website"},"datePublished":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","description":"Summaries of theft cases covering appropriation, property, belonging to another, the mens rea of theft, intention to permanently deprive, and intention to use or dispose of goods.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/theft-cases.php#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/theft-cases.php"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/theft-cases.php#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Theft Case Summaries"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website","url":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/","name":"Law Teacher","description":"The Law Essay Professionals","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization"},"alternateName":"LawTeacher.net","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization","name":"Law Teacher","alternateName":"LawTeacher.net","url":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg","width":250,"height":250,"caption":"Law Teacher"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/","https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/api.whatsapp.com\/send\/?phone=447723491966&text&type=phone_number&app_absent=0"],"description":"Law Teacher provides academic writing services for law students throughout the world.","email":"contact@lawteacher.net","telephone":"+44 115 966 7966","numberOfEmployees":{"@type":"QuantitativeValue","minValue":"51","maxValue":"200"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e","name":"LawTeacher","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"LawTeacher"},"description":"LawTeacher.net is the UK's leading provider of academic legal support, offering both writing services and an extensive collection of law study resources for students in the UK and overseas. Founded in 2003 by Grey's Inn graduate Barclay Littlewood, the Company was built on a commitment to excellence, with unique guarantees and a high standard of service from day one. The team includes over 500 UK legally qualified writing experts, with many practising solicitors and barristers, and several former lecturers.","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/gravatar.com\/lawteacherprofile"],"knowsAbout":["Contract Law","Criminal Law","Constitutional and Administrative Law","EU Law","Tort Law","Property Law","Equity and Trusts","Jurisprudence","Company Law","Commercial Law","Family Law","Human Rights Law","Employment Law","Evidence","Public International Law","Legal Research and Methods","Dispute Resolution","Business Law and Practice","Civil Litigation","Criminal Litigation","Professional Conduct","Taxation","Wills and Administration of Estates","Solicitors\u2019 Accounts"],"url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/author\/lawteacher"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5067","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5067"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5067\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5067"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5067"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5067"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}