In relation to a charge of theft where the issue of dishonesty is raised, the issue must be left to the jury. Dishonesty is not a matter of law, but a jury question of fact and standards. Except to the limited extent that section 2 of the Theft Act 1968 requires otherwise, judges do not, and must not, attempt to define it. The question was, was what was done dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people? Lawton LJ said: ‘Jurors, when deciding whether an appropriation was dishonest, can be reasonably expected to, and should, apply the current standards of ordinary decent people.’
Lawton LJ
(1973) 57 Cr App R 512, [1973] QB 530
Theft Act 1968 1
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Ghosh CACD 5-Apr-1982
The defendant surgeon was said to have made false claims for payment for operations, and was charged under the 1968 Act. He claimed to have been entitled to the sums claimed, and denied that he had been dishonest. The court considered the meaning of . .
Considered – Regina v McIvor CA 1982
The defendant had been refused a loan by his employers. He took the money anyway from the till and repaid it. On discovery he was charged with theft. He denied that he had been dishonest. He had always intended to repay it and had done so. He . .
Explained – Regina v Landy; Regina v White etc CACD 1982
The defendants appealed against convictions for conspiracy to defraud. The three were bank employees including the chairman, and between them managed to take money from the bank by different forms of malpractice. The defendants denied dishonesty, . .
Cited – Regina v O’Connell CACD 1992
The appellant and his wife appliied for loans to buy residential properties to be let to obtain a rental income covering most of the mortgage payments. The properties were later sold to take advantages of increases in value. A sum of andpound;1.5 . .
Cited – Regina v Clarke CACD 2-Apr-1996
Several people had lost large sums of mony by a fraud. The defendant had approached them offering his services as a private investigator to seek to recover their money. He pleaded guilty to one allegation of deception after an indication from the . .
Cited – Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd (T/A Crockfords) SC 25-Oct-2017
The claimant gambler sought payment of his winnings. The casino said that he had operated a system called edge-sorting to achieve the winnings, and that this was a form of cheating so as to excuse their payment. The system exploited tiny variances . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.214618
