Ricketts v Basildon Magistrates' Court

For theft, property may belong to another person even though it is not proved to belong to the named owner in the charge. It is sufficient that evidence permits the inference that another person had possession, control or a proprietary right or interest.

Goods left outside a charity shop are not necessarily abandoned. A donor may have divested himself of possession without transferring ownership, because delivery to the charity is incomplete until the charity takes possession. Goods placed in bins controlled by a charity may likewise be treated as being in the charity’s possession or control.

The claimant sought judicial review of the decision of Basildon Magistrates’ Court committing him for trial on two theft charges. The charges alleged that property taken from outside British Heart Foundation and Oxfam shops belonged to those charities.

The prosecution evidence did not include statements from either charity. The claimant argued that there was no evidence that the charities owned, possessed or controlled the property. The central issue was whether the magistrates could properly infer that the property belonged to someone other than the claimant.

1. Application dismissed. The claimant was properly committed for trial on both charges.
2. Under Theft Act 1968, section 5, property is regarded as belonging to a person having possession or control of it, or a proprietary right or interest in it. It was unnecessary at the committal stage to prove that the property belonged specifically to British Heart Foundation or Oxfam. The evidence only needed to support the conclusion that it belonged to someone other than the claimant.
3. As to British Heart Foundation, the magistrates could infer that unknown persons had left the goods intending to give them to the charity. The goods were not abandoned. The would-be donors had intended to give them and had attempted delivery, but delivery would be complete only when the charity took possession. Until then, the donors had relinquished possession but retained ownership.
4. It was therefore open to the magistrates to conclude that the goods belonged to another at the time of appropriation. The prosecution could, if appropriate, frame the indictment by alleging that the property belonged to persons unknown.
5. As to Oxfam, the court could infer that the goods had been placed in bins for Oxfam’s receipt or for disposal by the local authority. On the assumption that the bins were owned or controlled by Oxfam, Oxfam had taken delivery or possession of the goods. Even if control of the bins were disputed, their proximity to the shop supported an inference that they were under Oxfam’s control.
6. Williams and Others v Phillips (1957) 41 Crim.App.R 5, R v Rostron and Collinson [2003] EWCA Crim 2206 and William White 7 CR App R 266 CCA did not determine the issue because the present case concerned whether abandonment was the only available inference. The court considered that Williams and Others v Phillips arguably supported its analysis.

• Basildon Magistrates' Court: committed the claimant for trial on two theft charges.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the application for judicial review and upheld the committal decision.