R (on the application of Ricketts) v Basildon Magistrates’ Court
[2010] EWHC 2358; [2011] PTSR 180
Property belonging to another under the Theft Act 1968.
Facts
The defendant, Ricketts, was arrested after taking bags from outside a charity shop and from the bins at the rear of the shop and putting them into his vehicle. On interview he admitted he was taking them to sell. He was charged with theft under the Theft Act 1968 and was committed by the magistrates to Crown Court. He sought judicial review of this decision in the High Court claiming there was insufficient evidence against him.
Issues
Whether abandoned property could belong to someone else under s.1(1) 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.
Decision/Outcome
The magistrates had been right to commit the case. The charity shop did not own the property simply because it was left in close proximity to the shop. However, it could be inferred 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 it was inferred that the property in them was still under the charity’s control and, therefore, belonged to the charity. It was immaterial whether donors had placed the property in the bins or whether the charity had placed it there for disposal.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary remains legally accurate. R (on the application of Ricketts) v Basildon Magistrates’ Court [2010] EWHC 2358 is a valid and reported decision of the High Court (Administrative Court), and the citation [2011] PTSR 180 is correct. The legal principles described — concerning what constitutes property ‘belonging to another’ under ss.1(1) and 5(1) of the Theft Act 1968, and the question of whether apparently abandoned property can still belong to another person — remain good law. The Theft Act 1968 has not been amended in any way that affects these provisions. No subsequent case law is known to have overruled or materially qualified the reasoning in Ricketts. The article can be relied upon as an accurate statement of the law on this point.
