## Facts

- Pitham and Hehl were charged with theft of furniture belonging to a victim.
- While in custody for an unrelated matter, Pitham asserted that he could sell the victim's furniture.
- The furniture remained in the victim's home and neither defendant physically handled or removed the items.
- Pitham, without authority, offered to sell the goods as if he were the owner.
- Hehl inspected the furniture and agreed to purchase it, treating the goods as transferable.
- Both defendants were arrested and charged with theft based on conduct alleged to amount to appropriation of the victim's property.

## Issues

1. Whether offering to sell and agreeing to purchase goods, without physical handling or removal, constitutes "appropriation" under section 3(1) of the Theft Act 1968.
2. Whether interfering with the owner’s proprietary rights, specifically the right of disposal, qualifies as "assuming the rights of the owner" under section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions of both defendants for theft.
- The court determined that offering to sell another's property without authority is sufficient to assume the owner's right of sale.
- Appropriation was found to include acts beyond physical handling or removal, such as offering goods for sale.
- Hehl’s inspection and agreement to buy further demonstrated assumption of proprietary rights.
- Convictions stood even though the property remained in the victim’s premises and no possession had changed.

## Legal Principles

- Section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 defines theft as the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intent to permanently deprive.
- Section 3(1) clarifies that appropriation includes any assumption of the rights of the owner, not limited to physical taking or movement.
- Theft may occur by purporting to dispose of goods as owner, even without physical contact.
- The offence of theft protects proprietary rights beyond those recognized under common law trespass or conversion.
- Appropriation can arise from assuming any proprietary right, such as the right to sell, even in the absence of direct physical interaction with the goods.

## Conclusion

The court held that dishonestly offering to sell another’s property without authority, even without physical removal or handling, constitutes appropriation under the Theft Act 1968, as the assumption of any proprietary right is sufficient for theft.


R v Pitham and Hehl (1977) 65 Cr App R 45