- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Eddy v Niman (1981)
Appropriation in Theft
I. Case Summary:
Appropriation in Theft
I. Case Summary:
- Citation: Eddy v Niman (1981) QBD
- Issue: Whether the defendant (D) appropriated goods when he selected items in a supermarket with the intention to steal, placed them in a trolley, but then abandoned the goods before reaching the checkout.
- D entered a supermarket intending to steal.
- D placed items in a trolley.
- D changed his mind and abandoned the trolley with the goods before reaching the checkout.
- D left the store without paying.
- At what point does "appropriation" occur for the purposes of theft under the Theft Act?
- D was acquitted of theft at trial.
- The Queen's Bench Division upheld the acquittal.
- The court established a key test for appropriation: Has the defendant done some overt act inconsistent with the true owner's rights?
- Merely taking goods from a shelf and placing them in a store trolley does not constitute an overt act inconsistent with the owner's rights.
- The supermarket retains control and possession of the goods while they are in the trolley.
- Therefore, no appropriation occurred.
- Appropriation requires more than simply selecting and possessing goods within a store. There must be an action that demonstrates an assumption of the rights of the owner (e.g., switching price tags, attempting to leave the store without paying).
- This case clarifies the threshold for appropriation, emphasizing the need for an act that infringes upon the owner's rights over the goods. It highlights that preparatory actions towards theft do not necessarily constitute the actus reus of theft itself.
0 Comments