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

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.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal