The Law Commission Report on Fraud 2002 and Professor Griew’s 1985 article on dishonesty contain many of the criticisms of the law of theft. The fact that theft is defined in an Act of Parliament (Theft Act 1968) means that it is the job of judges to interpret the wording. The Theft Act 1968 is worded very specifically and is often described as a technical law. This means that people can often be found guilty or not guilty of theft on a technicality due to the wording, rather than on what would be regarded as fair.
The wide interpretation of the term ‘appropriation’ in s.3 Theft Act 1968 means that the defendant only needs to assume one of the rights of the owner and not all of them. This is why Morris (1983) was convicted for changing the price labels in a shop. The interpretation, in addition, allows the courts to convict shoplifters of theft before they have left the shop.
Your organisation does not have access to this article.
Sign up today to give your students the edge they need to achieve their best grades with subject expertise
Subscribe
