This case is a leading authority on the concept of “property belonging to another” under s5(1) of the Theft Act 1968. It confirms that property belongs to anyone who has possession or control, regardless of ownership or superiority of rights. It also clarifies the operation of the dishonesty provision in s2(1)(a) regarding claims of right. 

• Turner took his own car to a garage for repairs.

• After repairs were practically complete, the garage kept possession of the car and retained the ignition key.

• Turner told the garage proprietor he would return the next day to pay and collect the vehicle.

• Instead, he returned later the same day and took the car using a spare key, without paying.

• The garage proprietor found the car days later, removed the engine, and returned the vehicle shell to where he found it.

• Turner initially lied to police, denying the garage ever had the car, then later admitted taking it but claimed he believed he had the right to do so.

• He was convicted of theft of his own car.

1. Did the car “belong to another” under s5(1) when Turner took it, even though he was the owner?

2. Was Turner’s appropriation “dishonest,” given his claimed belief that he had a legal right to take the car?

The appeal was dismissed.

• The car did “belong to” the garage proprietor for the purposes of the Theft Act because he had possession or control at the time.

• The jury was properly directed on dishonesty: if Turner honestly believed he had a legal right to take the car, he should be acquitted, but on the facts the jury were entitled to reject that belief.

• No error of law occurred.

1. s5(1) Theft Act 1968: “Belonging to another” includes any person with possession or control, regardless of ownership title or legal rights. Lawfulness of possession does not matter.

2. A garage holding a customer’s car for repair is in possession/control; the owner can steal his own property from the person with possession.

3. Dishonesty under s2(1)(a) depends on the defendant’s actual belief that he had a legal right to deprive the other of the property; the belief need not be reasonable but must be genuinely held.

4. Surrounding circumstances (e.g., deception, lies to police, secretly taking the car) may allow the jury to reject an asserted belief in a lawful right.

5. The trial judge’s directions on both “belonging to another” and dishonesty were correct.