R v Briggs [2003] EWCA Crim 3662

Facts

• The case concerns the interpretation of “appropriation” under section 15(1) of the Theft Act 1968, specifically in the context of deception.
• The Court of Appeal examined whether a defendant’s deception must directly result in the victim transferring property, or if merely influencing the victim's decision suffices.
• The judgment distinguished between situations where a victim consents to a transfer because of the defendant’s deception and where the victim independently decides to transfer property due to being misled.
• Examples discussed included: a defendant falsely presenting as a charity worker to receive money directly (deception directly causing transfer) versus a victim being convinced to transfer funds themselves (where the victim's action interrupts the chain).
• The case was distinguished from R v Hinks [2001] 2 AC 241, which involved the acceptance of gifts as appropriation when dishonestly obtained.

Issues

1. Whether, under the Theft Act 1968, “appropriation” requires the defendant's deception to be the direct cause of the victim transferring property.
2. Whether a victim’s independent actions, even if influenced by the defendant’s deception, break the causal chain necessary for appropriation by deception.
3. How R v Briggs should be distinguished from R v Hinks in terms of the application of the concept of appropriation.

Decision

• The Court held that mere influence by deception is insufficient; the deception must directly cause the transfer of property to constitute appropriation under section 15(1) of the Theft Act 1968.
• If a victim, after being deceived, independently initiates and carries out the property transfer, the necessary direct link between deception and appropriation is broken.
• The Court clarified that R v Briggs does not contradict R v Hinks, as Briggs addresses the causative requirement in deception cases, whereas Hinks addressed dishonesty in the receipt of gifts.

Legal Principles

• Appropriation by deception requires a direct causal connection between the defendant’s deceit and the transfer of property.
• Victim's autonomous actions—when prompted but not directly caused by the defendant—interrupt the chain of causation for appropriation under the Theft Act 1968.
• The judgment imposes a stricter interpretation, preventing conviction where the victim's independent choice played an intervening role.
• Legal practitioners must analyze the method of transfer to determine whether the deception satisfies the appropriation element in theft.

Conclusion

R v Briggs [2003] EWCA Crim 3662 establishes that, for appropriation by deception under the Theft Act 1968, the deceptive act must directly cause the transfer of property; if the victim’s independent act causes the transfer, the defendant cannot be held liable for appropriation. This case refines the causal requirements of theft by deception and remains significant for the demarcation between direct deception and victim-initiated transfers.