Pitham and Hehl, 65 Cr App R 45

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Julie is a caretaker for her elderly neighbor, Ms. Dawson. Ms. Dawson owns a carefully curated collection of valuable antique vases. While Ms. Dawson is away on an extended trip, Julie sets up a yard sale in the shared driveway. She includes Ms. Dawson's antique vases in the sale, claiming that they belong to her. Ms. Dawson returns unexpectedly and accuses Julie of theft.


Which statement best reflects whether appropriation has occurred under the Theft Act 1968 in these circumstances?

Introduction

The offense of appropriation, as defined in the Theft Act 1968, involves taking over the rights of an owner. This act does not require physically moving property. Pitham and Hehl (1977) 65 Cr App R 45 is a key case that explains this principle, focusing on selling another’s goods as theft. The court concluded that offering to sell another’s property, even without physical contact, counts as taking over the owner’s rights and meets a basic requirement of theft. The case outlines the legal basis of appropriation in property crimes, providing clear rules for applying the Theft Act 1968.

The Facts of Pitham and Hehl

The case involved two defendants, Pitham and Hehl. Pitham, while in custody, attempted to sell furniture owned by another person (the victim) to Hehl. The furniture was in the victim’s home, which Pitham had no right to enter. Hehl later went to the property and agreed to buy the furniture. Neither defendant physically took any items.

The Court's Decision on Appropriation

The Court of Appeal upheld the theft convictions of both defendants. The court stated that Pitham’s offer to sell the furniture amounted to taking over the owner’s rights. By trying to sell the furniture, Pitham acted as its owner, which fulfilled the definition of appropriation. The court noted that physical contact is not necessary for appropriation; taking over any owner’s rights is sufficient. Hehl’s agreement to buy the furniture supported Pitham’s actions, showing further use of ownership rights.

Importance of the Ruling in Defining Ownership Rights

Pitham and Hehl clarified the meaning of “rights of an owner” under the Theft Act 1968. The case established that these rights include more than physical control, covering actions like selling or transferring property. The decision showed that interfering with these rights, even without physical removal, can constitute appropriation. This expanded how the Theft Act applies to cases where property is not physically taken.

Effect of Pitham and Hehl on Later Cases

The principles from Pitham and Hehl influenced later decisions on appropriation. Examples include Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1972] AC 626, where a taxi driver overcharged fares, and Morris [1984] AC 320, involving changing price tags in a store. These cases confirm that taking over an owner’s rights, without physical removal, qualifies as appropriation. Pitham and Hehl remains a central reference for interpreting theft law.

Real-World Examples of Appropriation

The principles from Pitham and Hehl apply to many situations. For example, attempting to rent out another’s property without permission would count as appropriation. Selling tickets to an event without owning them also falls under this rule. Damaging another’s property without consent, which removes their rights, could also be appropriation. These examples show how broadly the court’s definition applies.

Conclusion

Pitham and Hehl (1977) 65 Cr App R 45 is an essential case for understanding appropriation under the Theft Act 1968. The decision confirmed that offering to sell another’s property counts as taking over ownership rights, even without physical control. This expanded the scope of the Theft Act and influenced later cases like Lawrence and Morris, which support the idea that interfering with ownership rights can be theft. The ruling remains a basis for interpreting theft law and emphasizes the need to respect all ownership rights. The court’s analysis has shaped how the Theft Act 1968 is applied, demonstrating the case’s lasting impact on property crime law.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal