Appropriation as far as section 3 (1) of the Theft Act 1968 is concerned requires direct physical action as opposed to remote triggering.

In R v Briggs (2004) the appellant convinced her uncle and aunty to move closer to her so that she could take better care of them. Her aunty and uncle accordingly sold the house and the appellant made an arrangement with the conveyancers to have the house purchased in her name and have the proceeds of the sale given to her aunty and uncle, contrary to their wishes. The aunty and uncle never intended for their niece to purchase their property. The defendant was charged and convicted of theft. The defendant appealed.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction for theft was substituted with a conviction for deception. Appropriation as far as section 3(1) of the Theft Act 1968 is concerned is more in line with a direct physical act as opposed to remote triggering, which was the case in this instance and therefore a conviction for deception would be more appropriate as opposed to a conviction for theft.

Copyright © 2018 by Dyarne Jessica Ward

You may also like

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *