Mitchell, R. v

Section 6(1) of the Theft Act 1968 does not materially widen the requirement that theft requires an intention permanently to deprive. It covers limited, exceptional cases in which the defendant intends to deal with property as their own by disposing of it regardless of the owner’s rights, in a way equivalent to an outright taking.

An unauthorised taking of a vehicle for a brief getaway, followed by abandonment, does not without more establish that intention. Violence used to obtain the vehicle may establish the violence element of robbery, but it cannot supply the underlying theft. A robbery charge must therefore fail where the evidence discloses only unauthorised temporary use.

The appellant was convicted at Basildon Crown Court of robbing a BMW and was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that he and others forcibly removed Mrs Davis from the car, drove it away, and later abandoned it. Blood found in the car linked the appellant to it.

The appellant denied participating in the taking. On appeal, the material issue was whether, assuming his involvement, the evidence was capable of proving theft and therefore robbery. The central question was whether the brief use and abandonment of the BMW showed an intention permanently to deprive, including under section 6(1) of the Theft Act 1968.

1. Appeal allowed. The evidence was incapable of establishing theft of the BMW and, consequently, incapable of establishing robbery under section 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968.

2. Section 1 requires an intention permanently to deprive. Section 6(1) deems that intention where the defendant intends to treat the property as their own to dispose of regardless of the owner’s rights. It does not reduce theft to any unauthorised use or civil conversion. The authorities, including R v Warner 55 Cr App Rep 93, R v Lloyd and others [1985] QB 829, and R v Cahill [1993] Crim LR 141, show that section 6(1) addresses conduct equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.

3. The taking of the BMW was plainly for a getaway. Its use for only a few miles and its abandonment with the hazard lights on supported, rather than displaced, that inference. Neither the taking, use nor abandonment supplied evidence of an intention permanently to deprive or to dispose of the car regardless of the owners’ rights.

4. The forcible removal of Mrs Davis was relevant to violence, but violence cannot convert a temporary unauthorised taking into theft. The recorder therefore erred in leaving robbery to the jury and in relying on section 6(1) without directing the jury to decide whether the conduct was equivalent to an outright taking or disposal. The referred application for leave to appeal against sentence did not arise.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Allowed the appellant’s appeal against conviction for robbery.

• Crown Court at Basildon The appellant was convicted of robbery on 25 September 2006 and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment on 3 November 2006.