2.2.1 Theft – s.5 Belonging to Another

Statutory Definition

• s.5(1) Theft Act 1968:
  • “Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest.”
• Key Point: Belonging is not limited to ownership. Possession and control are enough.
• Ensures wide protection: You can steal from owner, borrower, bailee, employer, charity, or even from yourself in certain situations.

Elements of Belonging

1. Ownership

• The true legal owner always retains proprietary rights.
• If property taken without consent, it belongs to owner for purpose of theft.

2. Possession or Control

• Someone in possession/control (even without ownership) can be protected.
• Case: R v Turner (No.2) [1971] 1 WLR 901
  • Facts: D took his own car from garage without paying for repairs.
  • Held: Car belonged to garage by virtue of possession/control until payment.
  • Principle: Can steal your own property if another has possession/control.

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia, World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course

3. Abandoned Property

• If property is truly abandoned, it cannot be stolen.
• But “abandoned” interpreted narrowly.
• Case: R v Ricketts (2010)
  • Taking bags from outside charity shop was theft — property still “belonged” to charity as they had control.
• Courts reluctant to accept abandonment unless clear evidence.

4. Lost Property

• Property remains belonging to original owner even if lost.
• Case: R v Rostron (2003)
  • Defendants retrieved lost golf balls from course pond. Court held they still “belonged” to golf club.
• Even if owner unaware of possession, law protects property.

5. Property Received Under Obligation (s.5(3))

• If property given to D under obligation to deal with it in particular way, it belongs to another.
• Case: R v Hall (1973)
  • Travel agent took money for tickets, but didn’t allocate specifically to customer. No obligation under s.5(3).
• Case: R v Klineberg and Marsden (1999)
  • Customers paid money for holiday timeshares; Ds assured it would be held in trust. Obligation existed → theft when misused.
• Case: Davidge v Bunnett (1984)
  • D given money by flatmates to pay gas bill; spent on presents. Held: legal obligation meant money still belonged to flatmates.

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia, World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course

6. Property Obtained by Mistake (s.5(4))

• If property transferred by mistake, D under duty to restore it. If they keep dishonestly, it belongs to another.
• Case: A-G’s Ref (No.1 of 1983) [1985] QB 182
  • Policewoman overpaid salary into account. Knew of error, failed to return. Held: theft — legal obligation to restore.
• Case: Moynes v Cooper (1956)
  • Pre-Theft Act case where overpayment was not theft. s.5(4) changed this.
• Key Point: Even mistaken payments create “belonging” under Act.

7. Abandoned, Unclaimed, and Ownerless Property

• Courts reluctant to accept property as truly ownerless.
• Case: Williams v Phillips (1957)
  • Household rubbish put out for collection belonged to local authority.
• Case: Hibbert v McKiernan (1948)
  • Golf balls lost on course belonged to club.

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia, World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course

Wider Doctrinal Points

• Possession without ownership:
  • Protects employers, bailees, charities, and those temporarily holding property.
• Stealing one’s own property:
  • Turner (No.2) shows you can commit theft of your own property if it’s in lawful possession/control of another.
• Legal vs equitable ownership:
  • Complex in trust cases where property belongs to beneficiaries, not trustees.

Evaluation

• Strengths:
  • Wide definition protects almost all interests in property.
  • Prevents loopholes where D could argue “it’s mine” (Turner).
  • s.5(3) and s.5(4) ensure fairness where obligations or mistakes exist.
• Weaknesses:
  • Very wide scope — sometimes punishes unexpected situations.
  • Turner criticised for stretching meaning too far — difficult for ordinary citizens to predict liability.
  • Reliance on civil law obligations (trusts, contracts) makes criminal law complex.
  • Abandoned property distinction unclear (Ricketts vs. truly abandoned items).

Reform Proposals

• Law Commission (1993, 2002): Suggested clarifying boundaries of “belonging,” especially for obligations and mistakes.
• Suggested clearer statutory definitions to reduce reliance on complex case law.
• Debate continues about whether someone should ever be guilty of stealing their own property (Turner).

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia, World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course

Exam Application Strategy

1. Start with statutory definition (s.5) — includes possession, control, proprietary right/interest.
2. Identify which scenario applies:
   • Possession/control (Turner).
   • Abandoned property (Ricketts).
   • Lost property (Rostron).
   • Obligation to deal with property (Klineberg, Davidge).
   • Property obtained by mistake (A-G’s Ref (No.1 of 1983)).
3. Apply cases precisely to show how law extends “belonging.”
4. Discuss fairness/criticisms: broad scope, unpredictability.

Conclusion

• “Belonging to another” (s.5) is interpreted broadly to cover ownership, possession, control, obligations, and mistaken transfers.
• Case law shows you can steal your own property (Turner), cannot claim abandoned/lost property easily (Ricketts, Rostron), and obligations/mistakes create ownership rights (Klineberg, A-G’s Ref).
• Ensures wide protection of property rights but criticised for stretching concepts beyond ordinary meaning.