Facts: The defendant, a police woman, received an overpayment in her wages by mistake. She had noticed that she had received more than she was entitled to but did not say anything to her employer. She did not withdraw any of the money from her bank account. The trial judge directed the jury to acquit. The Attorney General referred a question to the Court of Appeal.

Held: It was possible for a theft conviction to arise where the defendant had not withdrawn the money. There was a legal obligation to return the money received by mistake.

Facts: One of the defendants nudged a man so as to make it easier for the other defendant to take his wallet from his pocket. The jury convicted both of robbery and they appealed contending that nudging fell short of using force.

Held: The convictions were upheld. The word force is to be given its ordinary meaning and requires no direction to the jury. The jury were entitled to find that force had been used.

Facts: The defendant picked up a handbag left in a cinema, rummaged through the contents and then replaced the handbag without having taken anything.

Held: At first instance the defendant was convicted of theft. The Court of Appeal quashed his conviction for theft: the defendant had only intended to steal something worth stealing, and conditional intent is insufficient for theft.

Facts: The defendant, an assistant at an electrical shop, was asked by an acquaintance to supply goods (£16,000) in exchange for two building society cheques that the defendant knew were stolen. The defendant obtained authority from the manager to supply the goods. The defendant did not tell the manager the cheques were stolen and he had not checked with the bank as he was instructed to do.

Held: There was an appropriation even though he acted with the authority of the shop manager.

Facts: The two defendants broke into a woman's home. One went upstairs and took some jewellery from her bedroom. After taking the jewellery the two of them tied her up. They were convicted of robbery and appealed on the grounds that the force came after they had appropriate the jewellery and thus did not come within the requirement of being immediately before or at the time of stealing.

Held: The convictions were upheld as the appropriation of the jewellery was a continuing act.

• Eveleigh LJ: "To say the conduct is over and done with as soon as he laid hands on the property is contrary to common-sense and to the natural meaning of the words. The act of appropriation does not cease. It is a continuous act and it is a matter for the jury to decide whether or not the appropriation has finished".

Facts: A travel agent received money from clients for deposits for their holidays. He paid these monies into the general current account for the business. The business collapsed before he paid the money to book the holidays and the clients lost their deposit.

Held: The travel agent was not liable for theft as there was no obligation to deal with the money in a particular way under s.5(3) Theft Act 1968.

Facts: Hinks, a young mother, befriended a 53 year old man called John Dolphin. He had been left money by his father and was naive, gullible and of limited intelligence. Over a period of 7 months, Hinks influenced, coerced and encouraged Mr Dolphin to withdraw sums, amounting to £60,000, from his building society account and for them subsequently to be deposited in Hinks' account. She was subsequently convicted of theft and appealed on the ground that the sums given were gifts which were valid in civil law.

Held: Hinks' conviction was upheld. An appropriation exists even where the victim consents to the appropriation.

Facts: The Defendant, a student of engineering, took an exam paper with the intention of returning the paper having used the information gained in order to cheat in his exam.

Held: The confidential information contained in the paper did not amount to intangible property for the purposes of the Theft Act 1968.

Facts: The defendant stole bags outside charity shops that had been donated.

Held: He was found guilty of theft.

Facts: Smith arranged to meet Chesterfield Jordan in order to buy some heroin from him. When Jordan arrived at the meeting point, the other appellants, Plummer and Haines, emerged from an alleyway where they had been hiding and attacked Jordan. Plummer put a knife to his throat and Haines punched him to the ground. Once Jordan was on the ground all three kicked him and demanded the heroin. Jordan handed over the heroin and they ran off. The three appellants were convicted of robbery and appealed on the grounds that drugs did not constitute property for the purposes of the Theft Act since the possession of it was unlawful.

Held: The appeal was dismissed and the convictions were upheld.

Facts: The defendant took his car in to a service station for repairs. When he went to pick it up he saw that the car was left outside with the key in. He took the car without paying for the repairs.

Held: He was liable for theft of his own car since the car was regarded as belonging to the service station as they were in possession and control of it.

Facts: The defendant, by organising events, raised money for a company which distributed money among charities. He paid what he had raised into a special bank account and thereafter, with the consent of the company, into his own bank account. He then dishonestly dissipated the credit in his account.

Held: The Court of Appeal held that he thereby appropriated property belonging to another because the jury were entitled to find that he was a trustee of the money collected and had therefore received it subject to an obligation to retain its proceeds (the successive bank accounts) and deal with them in a particular way (to hand them over to the company).

Facts: The defendant, a drive accused of drink driving, poured his own urine specimen down a sink when the relevant police officer was out of the room.

Held: Although their is a traditional view that human corpses cannot belong to anyone, body fluids can be stolen. He was guilty of perversion of the court of justice.