Providing resources for studying law
Custom Search
   Home      R v Holden
R v Holden [1991] Crim LR 478 Court of Appeal

The appellant worked for Kwikfit. He took some used tyres and was convicted of theft. He appealed contending that he was not dishonest since other workers did the same and he believed that he was allowed to do the same. However, his contract of employment contained a clause forbidding the taking of used items.


His conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal. The question of dishonesty under the exceptions in s.2(1) Theft Act 1968 is judged entirely subjectively. It is the defendant's belief alone that counts not what he was actually permitted or forbidden from doing.
Back to lecture outline on theft