PC Sharma attends a supermarket where Reeves picked up a bottle of whisky, placed it in his own bag and continued shopping. He was stopped by staff before reaching any till. Reeves says he always intended to pay. Which is correct?
- AReeves has not appropriated the whisky as he had not yet left the store
- BReeves has not appropriated the whisky as he had not yet passed the final point of sale
- CReeves has not appropriated the whisky as the store consented to him handling goods
- DReeves may have appropriated the whisky when he placed it in his own bag regardless of whether he had left the store
Show answer and explanation
Answer: D
Appropriation under s.3(1) Theft Act 1968 is any assumption of the rights of an owner. It does not require the property to leave the premises and can occur at the moment the defendant assumes those rights. Placing goods in one's own bag goes beyond the implied permission to handle merchandise and is capable of amounting to appropriation. Whether Reeves was dishonest - assessed under Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] - is a separate question.
s.3(1) Theft Act 1968; Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67
s.3(1): any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.
- A: The location of the defendant at the time is irrelevant to whether appropriation has occurred. Appropriation can take place anywhere within the store.
- B: There is no rule that appropriation requires passing a final point of sale. Appropriation is assessed at the moment the defendant assumed the rights of an owner, not by reference to any physical boundary.
- C: s.3(1) expressly provides that appropriation can occur even where the owner consents. The implied consent to handle goods does not prevent appropriation when the defendant goes beyond that permission.