## Facts

- Turvey worked for the Ministry of Works.
- A third party offered to buy table knives, spoons, and similar items if Turvey could obtain them from the Ministry.
- Turvey formed a plan to steal Ministry utensils and sell them, and asked Ward (another Ministry employee) to take the items for him.
- Ward immediately reported Turvey’s proposal to Ministry officials.
- Ministry officials, while remaining in control of the property, instructed Ward to remove the utensils and hand them to Turvey so Turvey could be caught.
- Ward, acting under those instructions and without dishonest intent, transferred the utensils to Turvey.
- Turvey received the goods and carried them away, and was arrested and convicted of larceny of government property.
- Turvey appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether larceny is established when property is delivered to the defendant by an intermediary acting under the owner’s instructions in a detection operation, such that the owner knowingly permits the delivery.

## Decision

- The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the larceny conviction.
- The court treated the Ministry’s authorization of the delivery as investigative cooperation rather than a true consent negating a trespassory taking.
- Ward’s acts were attributed to the continuing authority and control of the Ministry; Ward did not take possession adversely to the owner.

## Legal Principles

- Larceny may be committed despite an owner’s cooperation in a controlled delivery arranged to detect the offender.
- Apparent “consent” given solely to facilitate detection does not amount to genuine consent to part with possession so as to defeat the trespass element of larceny.
- When an intermediary acts at the owner’s direction and without dishonest intent, the owner may be treated as retaining control; the defendant’s receipt with felonious intent can still constitute a trespassory taking.
- The defendant’s belief and intent to steal are central; a detection scheme does not negate mens rea where the defendant acts to misappropriate the goods.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Turvey’s larceny conviction, holding that an owner’s authorized, controlled handover designed to catch a thief does not convert the defendant’s receipt and removal of property into a lawful taking or otherwise defeat larceny.


Rex v. Turvey, 2 All E.R. 60 (Ct. Crim. App. 1946)