R v Pitham and Hehl 1997

1. Facts:

• Scenario: The victim (V) was in prison, and his friend took someone to V's flat, offering V's goods for sale. The friend was charged with theft.

• Issue: Whether offering to sell goods without physically touching them constitutes appropriation and thus theft.

2. Outcome:

• Decision: The court held that the friend was guilty of theft. The mere act of offering to sell the goods was considered an interference with the owner's rights and thus constituted appropriation.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Assumption of Rights: This case established that appropriation includes any assumption of the rights of the owner, such as offering goods for sale, without the need for physical possession or touching.

• Expanding the Definition: The ruling broadened the definition of appropriation, indicating that theft could occur through actions that interfere with the owner's rights, even if there is no physical handling of the property.

• Legal Implications: This decision underscores that merely offering to sell something that one does not own can be sufficient for a theft conviction. The focus is on the assumption of ownership rights rather than physical actions.