Theft
This page contains two directions for theft – the second relating to specifically to shoplifting.
(1) Theft
A person is guilty of theft if she dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
There are four words or phrases in this definition to which I should refer.
dishonestly – this word bears its ordinary, natural meaning. You must ask yourselves whether you are sure that D** was acting dishonestly in relation to the **.
appropriate – this word simply means take. If D** took a quantity of ** from C**, that was an appropriation.
property belonging to another - it is not disputed that the **found under D**’s mattress belonged to C**.
intention permanently to deprive - in this case, that simply means intending to keep and/or use the **.
***
If C**’s evidence is truthful, D** is guilty of theft. If D**’s evidence may be truthful, she is not guilty of theft.
So the key question for you to answer, having regard to all the evidence and the directions which I give you is this
Are you sure that D** took a quantity of ** from C** and that she was acting dishonestly when she did so?”
If the answer is “yes”, the defendant is guilty. If the answer is “no”, she is not guilty.
(2) Theft (shoplifting)
A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it
I will break that down into four parts
Dishonestly
This word bears its ordinary natural meaning.
You must ask yourselves whether you are sure that D** was acting dishonestly.
Appropriate
This simply means take – taking goods in a shop is an appropriation.
Property belonging to another
There is no dispute that the goods belonged to **Sainsburys.
Intent to permanently deprive
This raises one of key the issues, Did D** intend to pay? If he intended to pay, he had no intention of permanently depriving **Sainsburys of the goods. If however, as the Prosecution say, he had no intention of paying, he did intend to permanently deprive **Sainsburys of those items.
There is no legal requirement that a shopper leaves the shop before being arrested for theft – although the fact that a shopper has left a shop without paying is evidence which may support the prosecution case that he or she did not intend to pay and so intended to permanently deprive the shop.
If D** did intend to permanently deprive Sainsburys of the shopping in his basket, neither the suggestion that **he wanted to feed his children, nor his drunkenness provides any defence. The mere fact that a defendant’s mind was affected by drink so that he acted in a way in which he might not have done had he been sober, does not help him at all.
So, the key question for you to answer is
Are you sure that D** was acting dishonestly and that he intended to leave Sainsburys without paying for the shopping in his basket?
If the answer is “yes”, he is guilty. If the answer is “no”, he is not guilty.