## Facts

- A student, referred to as 'M', was enrolled in a civil engineering course and dishonestly obtained an advance copy of an examination paper.
- M copied the contents of the examination paper and subsequently returned the original document.
- The university charged M with theft on the basis of misappropriating confidential information.
- The magistrate dismissed the charge, ruling there was no appropriation of "property" as defined by section 4(1) of the Theft Act 1968.
- The prosecution appealed, contending that the content of the examination paper constituted "intangible property.”
- The case was brought before a higher court to determine whether confidential information could constitute "property" under the Act.

## Issues

1. Whether confidential information, such as examination questions, is "property" within the meaning of section 4(1) of the Theft Act 1968.
2. Whether copying and returning a physical document, while misappropriating information it contained, amounts to theft under the Act.
3. Whether the absence of intention to permanently deprive the owner of tangible property precludes a finding of theft.

## Decision

- The Court found that confidential information does not fall within the definition of "intangible property" under section 4(1) of the Theft Act 1968.
- The distinction was made between the tangible examination paper (property) and the information contained therein, which was not property for the purposes of theft.
- M’s conduct was considered morally wrong but did not satisfy the legal requirements for theft.
- The court stated that the protection of confidential information is primarily addressed by civil law remedies, not criminal theft provisions.
- The prosecution's appeal was not upheld on the ground that the legislative intention of the Theft Act did not include confidential information as property subject to theft.

## Legal Principles

- For theft under the Theft Act 1968, "property" includes both tangible and certain intangible assets, but not confidential information.
- Civil law, rather than criminal law, provides remedies for breaches involving confidential information.
- The elements of theft—appropriation, property, belonging to another, and intention to permanently deprive—must all be satisfied.
- The absence of intention to permanently deprive the owner of tangible property undermines a charge of theft based solely on misappropriation of information.
- Precedents demonstrate that the Theft Act is not engaged unless the subject of the alleged theft falls within its statutory definition of property.

## Conclusion

Oxford v Moss (1979) 68 Cr App R 183 clarified that confidential information does not qualify as "property" for purposes of theft under the Theft Act 1968, and that such cases are more appropriately addressed by civil remedies rather than criminal prosecution.
