Theft Act 1968

1. Basic definition of theft.

(1)A person is guilty of theft if he [dishonestly要素1] [appropriates要素2] [property要素3] [belonging to another要素4] [with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it要素5]; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.

(2)It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit.

要素1：不诚实
（a）成文法
“Dishonestly”

(1)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest—

(a)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or

(b)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or

(c)(except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representative) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.

(2)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property.
(b)判例法-common law test for dishonesty
Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67
FACTS: Ivey was a professional gambler and the court had to consider whether what
he was doing while gambling on a card game amounted to the civil law concept of
cheating.
HELD: Lord Hughes (with whom all the other justices agreed) upheld the trial judge’s
decision that Ivey’s conduct did amount to cheating. He then went on to discuss the
criminal law test for dishonesty at length. First he noted all the criticisms of the test in
R v Ghosh, and then he surveyed the history of the test for dishonesty in the
criminal law. He noted that the opportunity to change the test was unlikely to arise in
a criminal case as trial judges would always give the test in R v Ghosh. He said that
the test for dishonesty in the criminal law should be the same as that in the civil law:
the test given in the case of Royal Brunei Airlines v Tan.

Lord Hughes:
‘When dishonesty is in question the fact-finding tribunal must first ascertain
(subjectively) the actual state of the individual's knowledge or belief as to the facts.
The reasonableness or otherwise of his belief is a matter of evidence (often in
practice determinative) going to whether he held the belief, but it is not an additional
requirement that his belief must be reasonable; the question is whether it is
genuinely held. When once his actual state of mind as to knowledge or belief as to
facts is established, the question whether his conduct was honest or dishonest is to
be determined by the fact-finder by applying the (objective) standards of ordinary
decent people. There is no requirement that the defendant must appreciate that what
he has done is, by those standards, dishonest.

To be continued