Theft and robbery

Theft (s.1 Theft Act 1968) requires dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intention permanently to deprive. Following Gomez [1993] AC 442 and Hinks [2001] 1 AC 241, appropriation means 'any assumption of the rights of an owner' — even with consent or a valid gift — making it morally neutral. The normative filter is dishonesty, now assessed objectively post-Ivey [2017] UKSC 67: was D's conduct dishonest by ordinary standards given D's actual knowledge/belief as to facts? Robbery (s.8) is theft plus force or threat of force used immediately before or at the time, in order to steal. This structure reflects Parliament's 1968 simplification of larceny's technical distinctions, shifting the moral weight from the act of taking to the defendant's dishonesty.

R v Lawrence [1972] AC 626: Taxi driver taking £6 for 50p journey — held appropriation occurs even with owner's consent. Established consent is irrelevant to appropriation, paving way for expansion.

R v Gomez [1993] AC 442: Shop assistant accepting stolen cheques with manager's consent — House of Lords held 'any assumption' means any, overruling Morris. Made appropriation morally neutral, shifting all normative work to dishonesty.

R v Hinks [2001] 1 AC 241: Accepting £60,000 in valid gifts from vulnerable man — held even valid gift can be appropriated if dishonestly received. Highly controversial: criminalises civilly lawful conduct, blurring theft/civil law boundary.

Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67: Abolished Ghosh test — dishonesty now purely objective (ordinary standards) with subjective knowledge of facts. Removes defendant's ability to set own moral standards.

R v Hale (1979) 68 Cr App R 415: Force used while tying up victim after taking jewellery — appropriation is continuing act, so robbery made out. Confirms pragmatic approach to temporal requirement.

Courts approach theft systematically: (1) Appropriation — any assumption of owner's rights (touching, taking, receiving, even accepting gift); consent irrelevant. (2) Property — all property except land (limited exceptions), wild creatures, confidential information. (3) Belonging to another — includes possession, control, proprietary interests (s.5). (4) Dishonesty — first check s.2(1) beliefs (legal right/consent/owner cannot be found); if none apply, use Ivey test. (5) Intention permanently to deprive — outright taking or s.6 'treating as own to dispose of'. For robbery, prove complete theft first, then force/threat immediately before/at time of stealing, used in order to steal. Force need not be substantial (Dawson: nudge suffices) but must be purposive not incidental.

Never apply Ghosh two-stage test — use Ivey objective standard only. Don't assume Hinks is uncontroversial — acknowledge criticism when applying. Remember robbery requires completed theft: if D believes in legal right (Robinson), no dishonesty means no theft means no robbery. Avoid overcomplicating s.6 — only cite if D intends to return property in fundamentally altered state. Check s.2(1) beliefs before Ivey — genuine belief negates dishonesty however unreasonable. Don't confuse appropriation as 'continuing act' (Hale) with indefinite continuation — force must be same transaction as theft.