[after scenario] What offences could Ken be liable for when looking at his conduct towards Norma?

Ken could be liable for the theft of the jackets he sent for dry cleaning at Norma’s shop.Theft is defined in section 1 of the theft act 1968 as the appropriation of property belonging to another, dishonestly and with intention to permanently deprive.Firstly, Ken has to have appropriated the jackets. Appropriation is defined in s.3(1) of the act as any assumption of the rights of the owner. This can include but is not limited to: taking the property; consuming the property or destroying the property. Pitham v Hehl outlined there does not need to be a physical contact with property in order for a theft to occur. Moreover, Morris outlined that an adverse interference with the rights of the owner could also be a theft. Here Ken has appropriated the jackets, as he walks into Norma’s shop and takes them from the counter, then proceeds to leave the shop. This satisfies the offences element of appropriation.Property must also be identified for the purpose of the offence. S.4(1) states that property can be money, things real, personal and things in action as well as things intangible. In Kelley and Linsay, dead body parts were personal property. In Welsh a urine sample was property. In Oxford v Moss exam paper questions were not property intangible while in Chan-Nia-Keung a shipping quota was intangible property that could be stolen. Here the Jackets which Ken sent to Norma’s dry cleaning shop to be cleaned were personal and real property to Ken, but could also be a thing in action for Norma, as it was part of a transaction: a cleaning service for a sum of money.Thirdly, the appropriation of the property must have been dishonest according to s.2(1) which doesn’t give examples of situations where a D will be dishonest, but gives examples of situations where D won’t be dishonest. These are: D believed he had a legal right to take (Holden); V would have consented if (s)he had been aware of the appropriation; or the owner could not be traced with reasonable steps (Small). Here D could have believed that he had a legal right to obtain the jackets without payment, as he had overpaid for previous services from Norma, and the overpaying of prior transactions may have in fact amounted to the cost of the service on this particular occasion, meaning a fee due to Norma could be null and void through her potentially dishonest conduct in over charging Ken for her services. However, we must also apply the objective Ghosh test. This asks: was the act dishonest according to honest people? And did D realise what he was doing was dishonest? These questions would be posed to the jury to decide. It is fair to say in this case that if Norma had over charged him in the past, then this may not be a dishonest act. However, the method of appropriation in the force of the action suggests an awareness of dishonesty on the defendant’s (Ken’s) part.