Property+Offences+-+Theft

A person commits theft where they act dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving that person of the property.

Dishonesty
According to s73(2) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) there will not be dishonesty where:
 * (a) the defendant appropriates the property in the honest belief that he has a right to deprive the other of it;
 * (b) the defendant appropriated the property in the belief he would have the owner's consent if the owner knew of the appropriation and circumstances of it; or
 * (c) the defendant appropriates the property in the belief that the person who owns the goods cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.

The test for dishonesty is entirely subjective per R v Salvo. The defendant but hold a subjective and genuine belief in one of the above provisions. The belief need not be based on rational or reasonable grounds.

Under s73(2)(a) the right that the defendant believes they have must be a legal right, and not merely a moral right to the goods.

Appropriation
Any assumption of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation under s73(4) Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). An appropriation is an act amounting to an "adverse" usurpation of the rights of the owner, and cannot involve an act expressly or impliedly authorised by the owner per R v Morris and R v Baruday.

There are two main views relating to the owner's consent:
 * 1) According to the Lawrence/Gomez view, appropriation is the assumption of any right of an owner irrespective of the consent or lack thereof on teh part of the person to whom it belongs.
 * 2) According to the Morris/Baruday view, appropriation is an act that amounts to an adverse interference with the rights of the owner. It cannot consist of an act that is expressly or impliedly consented to by the owner, although consent can be vitiated by any type of mistake.

Property is defined under s71(2) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) as including money and all other property, real or person, including things in action and other intangible property.

According to Oxford v Moss, information does not fall within the meaning of property, but this would seem to be irreconcilable with the words of the act to expressly include intangible objects.

Belonging to Another
According to s71(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), property shall belong to any person having either:
 * control;
 * possession; or
 * a proprietary interest

In R v Turner, Turner was found to have stolen his own property. This situation arose where a lien had been exercised over the goods, and so Turner was not entitled to them until full repayment was made.

Under s73(9) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), where a person receives goods on behalf of another and is under an obligation to deal with those goods in a certain way, the property shall be regarded as belonging to that other person. Therefore, if the person keeps the goods, they have committed theft per R v Hall.

There must be an intention on behalf of the defendant to never return the property, or alternatively, to return the goods in a substantially altered state per R v Duru.

According to s73(12), where the defendant treats the property as his own to dispose of regardless of the others rights, then they will be deemed to have intention to permanently deprave the victim.