*** Welcome to piglix ***

Theft Act 1968

The Theft Act 1968
Long title An Act to revise the law of England and Wales as to theft and similar or associated offences, and in connection therewith to make provision as to criminal proceedings by one party to a marriage against the other, and to make certain amendments extending beyond England and Wales in the Post Office Act 1953 and other enactments; and for other purposes connected therewith.

The Theft Act 1968 (c 68) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It creates a number of offences against property in England and Wales. On 15 January 2007 the Fraud Act 2006 came into force, redefining most of the offences of deception.

The Theft Act 1968 resulted from the efforts of the Criminal Law Revision Committee to reform the English law of theft. The Larceny Act 1916 had codified the common law, including larceny itself, but it remained a complex web of offences. The intention of the Theft Act 1968, was to replace the existing law of larceny and other deception-related offences, by a single enactment, creating a more coherent body of principles that would allow the law to evolve to meet new situations.

A number of greatly simplified – or at least less complicated – offences were created.

This section creates the offence of theft. This definition is supplemented by sections 2 to 6. The definition of theft under the Theft Act 1968 is ‘A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive the other of it’

This section provides a partial definition of dishonesty for certain purposes.

Appropriation is defined as "Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner".

The courts have interpreted the assumption "of the rights of an owner" to mean that a person assumes at least one of a set of rights rather than having to assume all of the rights of the owners. This interpretation of the legislation was originally given in the case of R v Morris; Anderton v Burnside, and it has been endorsed by the decision in R v Gomez.


...
Wikipedia

...