Marshall, Regina v: CACD 6 Mar 1998

Sale of Unexpired Portion of Ticket can be a Theft

The defendants had been using London Underground tickets, but selling on the unused balance after their journey. On a ruling at trial, they pleaded guilty to theft, but now appealed.
Held: The appeals failed. Although the tickets had passed to the possession or control of the passenger, they remained the property of LU.
Held: The appeals failed: ‘it is arguable, we suppose, that by the transaction each party has acquired a chose in action. On the side of the purchaser it is represented by a right to use the ticket to the extent which it allows travel on the underground system. On the side of London Underground it encompasses the right to insist that the ticket is used by no one other than the purchaser. It is that right which is disregarded when the ticket is acquired by the appellant and sold on. But here the charges were in relation to the tickets and travel cards themselves and a ticket form or travel card and, dare we say, a cheque form is not a chose in action. The fact that the ticket form or travel card may find its way back into the possession of London Underground, albeit with its usefulness or ‘virtue’ exhausted, is nothing to the point. Section 6 (1) prevails . .’

Times 10-Mar-1998, [1998] 2 Cr App Rep 282, [2000] EWCA Crim 3530
Theft Act 1968 1 6(1)
England and Wales
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Shannon 1973
An appeal will lie from a conviction entered upon a plea of guilty where that plea is a consequence of an earlier incorrect ruling in law. . .
CitedRegina v Vickers CACD 1975
Before arraignment, the judge had heard submissions of law on admitted facts. The judge ruled that if those admitted facts were proved or admitted in the forthcoming trial they would amount to an admission or conclusive evidence of the accused’s . .
CitedRegina v Morris (David); Anderton v Burnside HL 2-Jan-1983
The defendants had been accused of theft. One switched labels on a joint of pork in a supermarket, and the other presented the meat with the now cheaper label for purchase.
Held: The appeals were dismissed. There can be no conviction for theft . .
CitedLloyd and Another, Regina v CACD 23-Apr-1985
Lord Lane LCJ said: ‘Bearing in mind the observation of Edmund Davis LJ in Warner (1970) 55 CAR 93, we would try to interpret the section in such a way as to ensure that nothing is construed as an intention permanently to deprive which would not . .
CitedRegina v Fernandez CACD 22-May-1995
The procuring of the signing of a valuable security when intending to treat the document as one’s own can amount to theft.
Lord Justice Auld said: ‘In our view section 6 (1), which is expressed in general terms, is not limited in its . .
CitedRegina v Preddy; Regina v Slade; Regina v Dhillon (Conjoined Appeals) HL 10-Jul-1996
The appellants were said to have made false mortgage applications. They appealed convictions for dishonestly obtaining property by deception.
Held: A chose in action created by an electronic bank transfer was not property which was capable of . .
CitedTorkington v Magee 11-Jul-1902
Chose in Action defined
The effect of the 1873 Act was essentially procedural and it did not render choses in action that had not previously been assignable in equity capable of assignment.
Channell J defined a debt or other legal chose in action: ”Chose in Action’ . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.466410