Graham Case Analysis

486 Words2 Pages
Graham is liable for theft under the section 1 of the Theft Act 1968. Section 1(1) “A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it ; and “thief” and “steal” shall be constructed accordingly.” Graham goes into the shop in Meadowhall, a local shopping store and takes two suits into the changing room. He then takes the price tag off of one of the suits and walks out wearing one suit and returning the other. Whilst he wears the other suit assuming the property without the consent of the store’s owner, therefore has no intention in paying for the property. This is an appropriation of Section 3(1) stating that : “Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.” In Morris (1983) case, the defendant was found guilty of theft when he had just switched the price labels from two items on the shelf in the supermarket and then took the lower priced item in his shopping basket. He was caught before he even went through the checkout counter. This meaning although the customers are allowed to touch the items but they are not allowed to touch the price tags or in the case of Graham the security tag on the item. In this case Graham has been dishonest when he had removed the security tags and wore the suit while returning only the one of the two suits back to the assistant by the changing room. The case with the knickers on the other hand although the items in a store is not set in stone in which how an item should be kept but it is considered to be dishonest when Graham places the knickers in the suit pocket in which he has assumed property of. When Graham

More about Graham Case Analysis

Open Document