R v Pitham and Hehl

Facts

Millwood, who knew that the owner of a house was in prison, took the appellants to the house and offered to sell them the owner's furniture, which they agreed to buy and took away. The appellants were charged with handling stolen goods under s 22 of the Theft Act 1968.

History

The appellants were convicted of handling stolen goods and appealed.

Issue

When did the appropriation, and so the theft, take place; and was the appellants' receipt of the furniture otherwise than in the course of the stealing, as s 22(1) of the Theft Act 1968 requires for handling?

Held

Appeals dismissed; the convictions for handling were upheld.

Ratio

• Under s 3(1) of the Theft Act 1968, a person who offers to sell goods belonging to another, without the owner's authority, assumes the rights of an owner and so appropriates them; the theft is complete at that point, and a subsequent receipt of the goods by the buyers is not in the course of the stealing.

The judgments

Key reasoning

• Section 3(1) defines appropriation as any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner, and the right to offer goods for sale is such a right.
• Appropriation does not require physical interference with the goods; an assumption of a right of ownership is enough.
• Once the appropriation had occurred and the theft was complete, there was no continuing theft into which the appellants' receipt could be absorbed, so the exception in s 22(1) for handling in the course of the stealing did not apply.

Where it fits in the module

In the property offences topic, the case is used on two questions: what counts as appropriation, and when theft ends. It shows that theft can be committed by words alone, which reinforces the breadth of appropriation later confirmed in R v Gomez [1993] AC 442. It also illustrates the interaction between theft and handling, and the problem of fixing the moment at which theft is complete when the thief goes on dealing with the goods.

Criticisms

• Treating a mere offer to sell as a completed theft pushes liability very early; such conduct might more naturally be treated as an attempt or as preparation, since the owner's possession has not yet been disturbed.
• The instantaneous view of appropriation sits uneasily with Hale, where appropriation was treated as continuing for as long as the thief is in the act of stealing, and the courts have not offered a clear test for when a continuing appropriation ends.
• The result can be seen as outcome-driven: fixing the theft at the moment of the offer ensured that the buyers could be convicted of handling rather than escaping through the in the course of the stealing exception.