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 appealed from a direction from the judge that his own state of mind was neither here nor there.
Held: The meaning of dishonesty has both objective and subjective elements. The jury should use their own standards of honesty to see first whether the act was objectively dishonest. They should also allow for evidence from the defendant as to his state of mind. Though there had been a misdirection, there was no substantial injustice in this case, and the conviction stood.


[1982] 1 WLR 409, [1982] 1 All ER 491


Theft Act 1968 1


England and Wales


ExplainedRegina v Greenstein; Regina v Green CACD 1975
Meaning of dishonesty under the 1968 Act. . .
ConsideredRegina v Feely CACD 1973
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 . .

Cited by:

Dicta disapprovedRegina 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 . .
CitedIvey 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.


Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.214619