Theft: dishonesty and intention permanently to deprive

Overview

Recall questions on the three beliefs in section 2(1), the willingness to pay, the change made in 2017, borrowing and the film copies in R v Lloyd, and pawning.

What you need to know

Answer each one before you reveal it.

Questions from this subtopic

Each one with the model answer underneath.

1. 1

   Which section deals with dishonesty, and what does it actually do?

   Model answer

   Section 2 of the Theft Act 1968 does not define dishonesty; it lists three situations in which a defendant is not to be regarded as dishonest.

2. 2

   Name the three beliefs in section 2(1) that negate dishonesty.

   Model answer

   A belief in a legal right to deprive the other of the property, a belief that the owner would consent if they knew of the circumstances, and a belief that the owner cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.

3. 3

   Must a belief under section 2(1) be reasonable?

   Model answer

   No, the belief need only be genuinely held, so an unreasonable but honest belief in a legal right still prevents a finding of dishonesty.

4. 4

   Does a willingness to pay prevent an appropriation from being dishonest?

   Model answer

   Not necessarily; section 2(2) provides that a person may be dishonest even though they were willing to pay for the property.

5. 5

   State the test for dishonesty applied where section 2 does not settle the issue.

   Model answer

   The court establishes what the defendant actually knew or believed about the facts, and then asks whether their conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people.

6. 6

   How did the test for dishonesty change in 2017?

   Model answer

   Ivey v Genting Casinos removed the second limb of the older test, so it is no longer necessary to show that the defendant realised ordinary people would regard the conduct as dishonest.

Other ways to work this

The same content, four other ways.

What is inside Levo

Six ways to work the same material.