The Theft Act 1968
| Date | 01 January 1969 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201836903300109 |
| Published date | 01 January 1969 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The
Theft
Act
1968
THIS Act came into force on I
January
1969, and (except as
otherwise provided) has effect only in relation to offences wholly
or partly committed after its commencement.
The
Larceny Acts of 1861 and 1916 are among the enactments
repealed.
The
Act abolishes the old offences of larceny, embezzle-
ment and fraudulent conversion and replaces them with a new
offence of theft.
The
various categories of larceny, e.g. larceny as a
servant, larceny as a tenant, larceny in a dwellinghouse disappear.
A review of all the provisions of the Act is not possible within the
scope of these notes. An attempt has been made to deal with certain
offences which will certainly arise very shortly after the Act becomes
operative and it is hoped that some practical assistance will have
been given to those called upon to enforce its provisions.
Theft
generally
Theft is defined as the dishonest appropriation of property belonging
to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other
of it (s.I ( I)).
The
major change from the old law of larceny
is that theft does not require
that
the property should have been
taken and carried away; thus the elements of the new offence are
(I)
dishonesty, (2) appropriation, and (3) intention to permanently
deprive.
••
Dishonestly"
The
term "dishonestly" replaces the words "fraudulently and
without a claim of right made in good faith" formerly contained in
S.2 of the Larceny Act 1916. "Dishonestly" is not defined in the Act
but
S.2
(I)
provides three specific sets of circumstances in which an
appropriation ofproperty is not to be regarded as dishonest. They are
(a)
if
the accused believes that he has in law the right to deprive the
other of it, (b) if he believes that he would have the other's consent
if the other knew of the appropriation, and
(c)
(except where the
property came to him as trustee or personal representative)
if
he
believes that the owner cannot be discovered by taking reasonable
63
To continue reading
Request your trial