R (on the application of Ricketts) v Basildon Magistrates’ Court
[2010] EWHC 2358 (Admin), [2011] PTSR 180, [2011] 1 Cr App R 15
Property belonging to another under the Theft Act 1968.
Facts
Ricketts was arrested after taking items from outside a British Heart Foundation shop and from bins behind an Oxfam shop. He said he was collecting things to sell at a boot fair. He was charged with two counts of theft and committed by the magistrates to the Crown Court for trial. He sought judicial review of that decision, claiming there was insufficient evidence that the goods belonged to another person.
Issues
Was there enough evidence for the magistrates to conclude that the property could still belong to another person under the Theft Act 1968? To commit an offence of theft under s.1(1) and s.5(1) of the 1968 Act the defendant must appropriate property which ‘belonged to another’. The defendant contended that leaving property outside a shop and in bins at the rear of a shop raised an inference that the property had been abandoned and did not belong to another person.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
Decision/Outcome
The High Court dismissed the application for judicial review. There was enough evidence to commit the case for trial. The charity shop did not own the property simply because it was left in close proximity to the shop. However, the magistrates could infer that the donors had left their property outside the shop intending to make a gift of it to the charity shop, and that these donors retained ownership until the gift was effected. Secondly, due to the close proximity of the bins to the shop the magistrates could infer that Oxfam controlled the bins and possessed the goods when Ricketts took them. It was immaterial whether donors had placed the property in the bins or whether the charity had placed it there for disposal.
