Skip to content
MarkSchemeMarkScheme
Sign up — no card

9084 · 2.2.1

Theft as defined in s1 Theft Act 1968 — practice questions

Practice and worked examples for 9084 Theft as defined in s1 Theft Act 1968. Short previews only — attempt the full question in MarkScheme against the official scheme.

Worked example 1

Shop assistant Priya uses her employer's login to transfer £2,000 from the till account to her personal account. The manager had given her the password for legitimate refunds. Has Priya committed theft? Analyse each s1 element. [10 marks]

Show solution outline

1. Appropriation (s3): Priya assumed the employer's rights over the money by transferring it — Morris v CW Green confirms appropriation is any assumption of owner rights, even if D already has some rights over the property.

2. Property (s4): The £2,000 is a thing in action (bank credit) and is property under s4(1).

3. Belonging to another (s5): The till account belongs to the employer — s5(1). Priya's limited authority to process refunds does not give her ownership. Consent to use the login does not prevent appropriation where she exceeded that authority (R v Gomez).

4. Dishonesty (Ivey v Genting Casinos): (i) Priya's knowledge: She knows she is taking money without permission for personal use. (ii) Objective standard: Transferring employer funds to a personal account is dishonest by ordinary standards.

5. Intent to permanently deprive (s6): Transferring to her own account shows intent to treat the money as her own to dispose of — R v Velumyl.

Conclusion: All five elements are satisfied. Priya is guilty of theft under s1(1).

Worked example 2

Ben is a salaried employee, earning £2,500 per month. Due to a payroll error, his employer accidentally pays him £25,000 for one month. Ben notices the extra money in his bank account. He knows it's a mistake but decides to keep it. He transfers the excess amount to a separate savings account. Analyse whether Ben is guilty of theft.

Show solution outline

To determine if Ben is guilty of theft, we must apply the five elements from the Theft Act 1968.

1. Property (s4): The property in question is the excess payment. The amount is £25,000 (paid) - £2,500 (owed) = £22,500. This money, existing as a credit in a bank account, is a 'thing in action' and is clearly 'property' under s4(1).

2. Belonging to another (s5): Although the money is in Ben's account, s5(4) applies. It states that where a person gets property by another's mistake and is under an obligation to make restoration, the property is regarded as belonging to the person entitled to restoration (the employer). The case of A-G's Ref (No 1 of 1983) confirms this principle applies to overpayment of wages. Therefore, the £22,500 legally 'belongs to' his employer.

3. Appropriation (s3): Ben appropriates the property when he 'assumes the rights of an owner'. This occurs when he decides to keep the money and acts on that decision by transferring it to a separate account. This is a clear assumption of the employer's rights over the money.

4. Dishonesty (s2): We apply the Ivey v Genting Casinos test. (i) What was Ben's actual knowledge? He knew he had been overpaid by £22,500. (ii) Was his conduct (keeping the money) dishonest by the standards of ordinary, decent people? Yes, knowingly keeping a large sum paid by mistake would be considered dishonest by objective standards.

5. Intention to Permanently Deprive (s6): By transferring the money to a separate account and deciding to keep it, Ben is treating the money as his own to dispose of regardless of the employer's rights. This satisfies the requirement for an intention to permanently deprive under s6(1).

Conclusion: All five elements of theft are present. Ben is guilty of stealing £22,500 from his employer.

Mark a 9084 question on this topicFull lessonOpen in course studio