## Facts

- The case concerned the defendant, Turner, who took back his own car from a garage without paying for repairs.
- The garage had performed repair work on the car and retained possession under a legal right to hold the car as security for unpaid debts.
- Turner, the legal owner of the car, removed it from the garage’s control without settling the repair bill.
- The case examined whether Turner’s actions constituted theft under section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968.

## Issues

1. Whether taking one’s own property from another’s lawful control for the purpose of avoiding payment can amount to theft under the Theft Act 1968.
2. Whether the garage’s right to retain the car for unpaid repair charges meant the car “belonged to another” within the meaning of the Act.
3. Whether dishonesty and the intent to permanently deprive applied where the owner takes their own property from lawful control.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that Turner was guilty of theft despite being the car’s legal owner.
- It determined the garage’s legal right to retain the car for unpaid bills constituted “control,” making the car property “belonging to another” under the Act.
- Turner’s removal of the car without payment was found to be dishonest, satisfying the requirements for theft.
- The court applied the test for dishonesty, considering both objective community standards and the defendant’s own awareness.

## Legal Principles

- Under section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968, theft includes dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intent to permanently deprive.
- “Belonging to another” encompasses situations where someone lawfully holds property by virtue of a legal right, regardless of the true owner.
- Dishonesty is assessed via a two-stage test, considering both ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people and the defendant’s own knowledge or belief.
- The case demonstrates that lawful control rights can take precedence over legal ownership for the purposes of theft.
- Property law distinguishes between ownership and control; interference with lawful control may constitute theft even if the property is owned by the defendant.

## Conclusion

R v Turner [1971] established that removing one’s own property from another’s lawful control, where a legal right to retain exists and the act is dishonest, constitutes theft under the Theft Act 1968. Ownership does not preclude theft when control rights are violated dishonestly and with intent to deprive.


R v Turner [1971] 1 WLR 901 (CA)