ABSTRACT
The 1968 Act itself was based on the Eighth Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee (CLRC), ‘Theft and related offences’.7
It was the view of the Committee that it was the dishonest appropriation of another’s property that was the concern of the criminal law and that this was to be reflected in a ‘new’ offence of theft:
1-05 It was the express intention of the CLRC that the Act should be both simple and understandable. Moreover, the language that was used was to be given its ordinary meaning. This can be seen in the fact that crucial terms, such as ‘dishonesty’, were not provided with an interpretation (apart from the explanation in s 2 as to what was not to be regarded as dishonest). This was welcomed by the courts (although, sometimes, in word and not in deed). In Treacy v DPP, Lord Diplock opined that the Act:
1-06 This is not to say, however, that the Committee’s work is beyond criticism. There were a number of areas where insufficient thought had gone into the recommendations put forward. These have become the subject of much subsequent difficulty. One instance of this may be mentioned here. The Committee had concluded that it was not practicable for any definition of theft to encompass the offence of obtaining by false pretences. This was finally settled by the House of Lords in Gomez, to the effect that obtaining property (with the exception of land) by deception, under s 15, would also constitute theft.11
