## Facts

- Smith installed electrical wiring in a rented flat.
- He later removed the wiring, believing it was his.
- The wiring, having become part of the building, legally belonged to the landlord.
- Smith was charged with theft for removing the wiring.

## Issues

1. Whether a genuine but mistaken belief regarding ownership negates the mental element required for theft under the Theft Act 1968.
2. Whether the prosecution must prove the defendant was aware that the property belonged to another.
3. How the concepts of dishonesty and intent to permanently deprive apply when the defendant claims belief in a right to the property.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that the prosecution must demonstrate the defendant knew the property belonged to someone else.
- Smith’s genuine, albeit mistaken, belief that the wiring was his meant he lacked the necessary intent for theft.
- The court determined that a sincere belief in one’s right to the property, even if mistaken, removes dishonesty.
- The appeal succeeded, and Smith’s conviction was overturned.

## Legal Principles

- Section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 requires proof of dishonesty and an intention to permanently deprive the owner of property.
- Under Section 5(1) of the Theft Act 1968, “belonging to another” covers possession, control, or a proprietary right, not just ownership.
- Dishonesty is absent if the defendant sincerely believes they have a right to the property, based on standards elaborated in cases such as R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053.
- The mental state for theft includes an awareness that property belongs to another and an intention to deprive the owner dishonestly.

## Conclusion

R v Smith [1974] QB 354 established that a defendant’s genuine belief about their right to property, even if mistaken, precludes a finding of dishonesty and thus the mental element required for theft, shaping the interpretation of the Theft Act 1968 and subsequent case law.


R v Smith [1974] QB 354 (CA)