## Facts

- Johnson was charged under section 5(1) of the Theft Act 1978 for obtaining services without honest payment by staying in a hotel without settling the bill.
- He claimed he believed he was entitled to remain in the hotel due to a separate arrangement.
- The Court of Appeal examined whether Johnson’s belief—though possibly mistaken—impacted the assessment of dishonesty within the offence.

## Issues

1. Whether "wrong" in section 2(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1978, when assessing dishonesty, should be interpreted according to legal rules or moral standards.
2. Whether a genuine, albeit incorrect, belief in having a legal right can negate the element of dishonesty in dishonesty-based offences.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal confirmed that "wrong" in the context of dishonesty offences refers to conduct that breaks the law, not merely that which violates moral norms.
- A defendant’s sincere belief in having a legal right, even if incorrect as a matter of law, may remove the element of dishonesty.
- Personal moral views are not determinative of criminal responsibility; the law’s objective standards govern.
- The prosecution bears the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant acted dishonestly according to legal criteria.

## Legal Principles

- The assessment of dishonesty in criminal law is governed by legal standards rather than subjective moral opinions.
- A defendant’s genuine belief that they have a legal right can, if honest, serve as a defence to dishonesty-based crimes, provided it is rooted in legality and not mere morality.
- Johnson confirms previous authority such as R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053, reinforcing the law-focused standard in interpreting "wrong."
- The principle of mens rea requires that both the actus reus and a culpable mental state be established to secure a conviction.

## Conclusion

R v Johnson [2007] EWCA Crim 1978 held that, for dishonesty offences, "wrong" must be understood as contravening legal rules rather than simply acting immorally, and that a genuine, even if mistaken, belief in a legal right may negate dishonesty for the purposes of mens rea in criminal law.
