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.
