Theft Solicitors

Theft allegations arise in a range of circumstances, including where an item has been found but not returned or where there is a dispute about the ownership of property, whether permission was given or the terms on which money or property was provided. Other cases involve more straightforward allegations that money, goods or other property were deliberately taken.

The prosecution must prove not only that property belonging to another was appropriated, but that the person acted dishonestly and intended permanently to deprive the owner of it. It is important to consider carefully how the allegation is approached, as a conviction for an offence involving dishonesty can have particularly serious consequences for professionals, business owners and others in positions of trust.

Advice at an early stage is often crucial. The strategy adopted when answering police questions can have a significant bearing on whether a charge is avoided or an out-of-court disposal, such as a caution or community resolution, can be secured. If you have been invited to a voluntary interview, we can provide specialist advice and consider whether written representations may help achieve the best available outcome. If proceedings are brought, we can advise on the evidence and provide specialist representation through to trial or sentence.

Reeds Solicitors is ranked Tier 1 by the Legal 500 and Band 1 by Chambers UK for criminal defence.

0333 240 7373 | [email protected]

What the Prosecution Must Prove

Under the Theft Act 1968, a person commits theft if they dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other person of it. The prosecution must prove each part of that definition beyond reasonable doubt:

• Appropriation: The person assumed one or more of the rights of an owner, such as taking, keeping, using or disposing of the property.
• Property belonging to another: The property was owned by someone else.
• Dishonesty: Based on the facts as the person genuinely believed them to be, their conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people.
• Intention permanently to deprive: The person intended that the owner would not get the property back or treated it as their own to dispose of regardless of the owner’s rights.

In many cases, the central issue is whether the person acted dishonestly or intended permanently to deprive the owner.

Common Defences to Theft Allegations

There is often another side to the story, and the police may have been misled by the initial allegation or given an incomplete account of what happened. Common defences include:

• An honest belief in a legal right: A person may genuinely believe they are entitled to retain money owed to them or remove property they paid for following the end of a relationship or business arrangement.
• An honest belief in consent: Previous conversations or dealings may support the person’s belief that they had permission to use, take or retain the property.
• No intention permanently to deprive: An item may have been borrowed or retained during a dispute, with the person intending to return it rather than keep it permanently.
• Disputed ownership or terms: The allegation may arise from a genuine disagreement about who owned an item or whether money was a gift, loan, payment or investment.
• Factual denial or mistaken identification: The person may deny taking the property, while CCTV, location data, transaction records or witness evidence may support their account.

The police will usually have an initial statement from the complainant setting out the allegation and may also have messages, emails, financial records or CCTV. In some cases, however, the dispute turns on what was said verbally and there is little independent evidence. The consistency and credibility of each person’s account then become particularly important. When instructed, we will carefully consider these issues and advise on the best approach to protect your position.