Police Sergeant Exam
Free mock exam

Theft Act 1968: Theft, Robbery and Related Offences

The Theft Act 1968 defines theft as dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. It also creates robbery, burglary, vehicle taking, handling and going equipped. Officers sitting the sergeants' and inspectors' exams and the NIE need every element, because exam questions turn on a single word.

Updated 2026-10-30 · 13 min read · Checked against official sources

The Theft Act 1968 is the backbone of the acquisitive crime chapter. It defines theft in one sentence and spends five sections explaining it. Robbery, burglary, vehicle taking, handling and going equipped all build on that definition.

This guide works through the Act the way the sergeants' exam tests it: the wording, the points to prove, the penalties, the cases and the traps. Burglary has its own page at burglary and aggravated burglary. For the exam itself, see the sergeants' exam guide.

This guide is a revision aid, not legal advice; the exam follows the 2027 Blackstone's manuals, so check every point against your manual.

Theft Act 1968 section 1: the offence in full

Section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 reads:

"A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it."

Section 1(2) adds that gain or personal benefit is irrelevant. Sections 2 to 6 explain the five building blocks.

Dishonestly (section 2)

Section 2(1) gives three beliefs that stop an appropriation being dishonest:

  1. a belief that you have in law the right to deprive the other of the property, for yourself or a third person;
  2. a belief that you would have the owner's consent if the owner knew of the appropriation and the circumstances;
  3. a belief that the owner cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps (this one does not help a trustee or personal representative).

The belief only has to be genuine, not reasonable. Under section 2(2), willingness to pay does not make an appropriation honest.

Outside section 2, the courts use the two-stage test from Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017], which the Court of Appeal adopted for criminal cases in R v Barton and Booth [2020]. First, what did the defendant actually know or believe about the facts? Second, given that state of mind, was the conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people? The old subjective second limb from R v Ghosh no longer applies.

Appropriates (section 3)

Any assumption of the rights of an owner is an appropriation. It includes a later assumption of those rights by keeping or dealing with property you came by innocently. Section 3(2) protects a good-faith buyer for value: if the seller's title turns out to be defective, the buyer's later dealing with the goods is not theft.

Property (section 4)

Property includes money, all real and personal property, and things in action (such as a bank credit) and other intangible property. There are three key limits:

  • Land generally cannot be stolen, subject to the three exceptions in section 4(2), for example a person not in possession who severs something forming part of the land.
  • Wild plants: picking wild mushrooms, flowers, fruit or foliage is not theft unless done for reward, sale or another commercial purpose (section 4(3)). Uprooting the whole plant is not "picking", so it falls outside this exemption.
  • Wild creatures can only be stolen once reduced into someone's possession, or while someone is in the course of doing so (section 4(4)).

Belonging to another (section 5)

Property belongs to anyone with possession or control of it, or any proprietary right or interest in it, so an owner can steal their own property from someone with possession at the time. Section 5(3) covers property received with an obligation to deal with it in a particular way, and section 5(4) covers property got by another's mistake where there is an obligation to restore it.

Intention of permanently depriving (section 6)

Section 6(1) treats an intention "to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other's rights" as an intention to permanently deprive. A borrowing or lending counts only if it is for a period and in circumstances "making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal". Section 6(2) covers parting with property under a condition you may not be able to meet, such as pawning someone else's watch.

Exam tip: Find the moment the dishonest intention was formed. A diner who decides not to pay only after eating cannot steal food that is already consumed; look at making off without payment instead.

The other Theft Act 1968 offences in brief

Robbery (section 8)

Robbery is theft plus force: the person steals and, immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force. The fear does not have to be achieved; "seeks to put" covers an attempt to frighten. Force on a bystander counts. Force used after the theft is complete, or force not used in order to steal, does not.

TWOC and aggravated vehicle-taking (sections 12 and 12A)

Section 12(1) covers taking any conveyance for your own or another's use without the owner's consent or other lawful authority, and knowingly driving or being carried in one that has been taken. A conveyance must be built or adapted to carry a person; pedal cycles are dealt with separately under section 12(5). Section 12(6) gives a defence of belief in lawful authority or in the owner's consent. Proceedings for a mechanically propelled vehicle can start up to three years after the offence (section 12(4A)).

Section 12A makes the basic offence aggravated if, after the taking and before recovery, the vehicle was driven dangerously, caused an accident injuring someone, caused an accident damaging other property, or was itself damaged. It does not matter who was driving. The defendant has a reverse-burden defence that the event happened before they took part, or that they were not in, on or near the vehicle at the time.

Handling stolen goods (section 22)

Handling is a single offence with many forms: receiving, or undertaking or assisting in the retention, removal, disposal or realisation of stolen goods by or for the benefit of another person, or arranging to do either. The handler must know or believe the goods are stolen and act dishonestly, and it must be "otherwise than in the course of the stealing". Our separate handling stolen goods guide covers the forms of handling in depth.

Going equipped (section 25)

When not at your place of abode, having with you any article for use in the course of or in connection with any burglary or theft. Section 25(3) makes possession of an article made or adapted for burglary or theft evidence of the intended use. Section 25(5) treats TWOC as theft for this section, so a set of car keys carried for joyriding is covered.

Burglary (section 9) in summary

Burglary is entering a building or part of a building as a trespasser, either with intent to steal, inflict grievous bodily harm or do unlawful damage (s.9(1)(a)), or, having entered as a trespasser, stealing or inflicting grievous bodily harm, or attempting either (s.9(1)(b)). Aggravated burglary under section 10 adds a firearm, imitation firearm, weapon of offence or explosive. See the full burglary and aggravated burglary guide.

Points to prove for theft and robbery

Element What it means Evidence an officer gathers
Dishonestly No section 2 belief, and dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people (Ivey/Barton) Account in interview, concealment, false names, lies, behaviour on CCTV
Appropriates Any assumption of the rights of an owner, including keeping or dealing later CCTV, witness evidence of taking, moving, selling or using the item
Property Money, goods, things in action, intangibles, within section 4 limits Description and identification of the item, bank records
Belonging to another Someone else had possession, control or a proprietary interest Owner's statement, receipts, proof of ownership or control
Intention to permanently deprive Meant the owner to lose it, or section 6 conduct Disposal, sale, damage, removal of identifiers, admissions
Robbery: force or fear Force on any person, or putting or seeking to put any person in fear of force then and there Victim and witness statements, injuries, body-worn video
Robbery: timing and purpose Immediately before or at the time of stealing, and in order to steal Timeline from CCTV and statements

Mode of trial and maximum penalty

These figures were checked on the current revised text of each section, the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and the Sentencing Council theft guideline.

Offence Section Mode of trial Maximum on indictment
Theft s.1 (penalty s.7) Either way 7 years
Low-value shoplifting (goods £200 or less) s.22A MCA 1980 Summary only, but an adult can elect Crown Court trial Summary penalty only
Robbery and assault with intent to rob s.8 Indictable only Life
Burglary of a dwelling s.9 Either way, with indictable-only exceptions 14 years
Burglary of a non-dwelling s.9 Either way, with indictable-only exceptions 10 years
Aggravated burglary s.10 Indictable only Life
Taking a conveyance without authority (TWOC) s.12(1) Summary only 6 months or a fine, or both
Taking a pedal cycle s.12(5) Summary only Level 3 fine
Aggravated vehicle-taking s.12A Either way 2 years, or 14 years if the accident caused death
Handling stolen goods s.22 Either way 14 years
Going equipped s.25 Either way 3 years
Making off without payment s.3 Theft Act 1978 Either way 2 years

Magistrates can impose up to 12 months for a single either-way offence committed on or after 2 May 2022 (section 224 of the Sentencing Code, as amended in November 2024).

Key fact: Low-value shoplifting is still theft. CPS guidance, applying Candlish v DPP [2022], says it stays an either-way offence until plea and allocation, so the six-month summary time limit does not bar a late charge. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 (s.47) will repeal section 22A and make all shop theft triable either way, but on 30 October 2026 that section was not yet in force.

Key definitions and leading cases

  • Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1971]: a taxi driver who took far more than the fare from a passenger's open wallet appropriated the money even though the passenger let them take it. Consent does not prevent appropriation.
  • DPP v Gomez [1993]: the House of Lords confirmed that appropriation does not need any adverse interference with the owner's rights. Getting goods with the owner's consent by deception can still be an appropriation.
  • R v Turner [1971]: a man who took his own car from a garage that had repaired it, without paying, was guilty of theft. The garage had possession and control, so the car "belonged to another".

Intention to permanently deprive

  • R v Vinall [2012]: section 6(1) needs a state of mind, not an actual disposal. Whether the defendant intended to treat the thing as their own to dispose of is a question for the jury.
  • CPS guidance notes that a vehicle taken and abandoned is normally recovered, so TWOC is the usual charge unless there is evidence such as changed plates or a deliberately burnt-out car.

Robbery

  • R v Hale [1979]: appropriation is a continuing act. Force used while the theft is still going on (for example, tying up the occupier while leaving with the goods) can make it robbery. Whether the theft was still in progress is a jury question.
  • R v Clouden [1987]: wrenching a shopping basket from the victim's hand was capable of being force.
  • P v DPP [2012]: snatching a cigarette from between the victim's fingers without touching the victim was not force on the person.
  • R v Mitchell [2008]: no theft, no robbery. A violent car-jacking without an intention to permanently deprive is not robbery.

Vehicle taking and handling

  • R v Bogacki [1973]: for TWOC the conveyance must be moved, however small the distance.
  • R v Pearce [1973]: taking a rubber dinghy away on a trailer was TWOC because the purpose was to use it later as a conveyance.
  • R v Bloxham [1982]: a buyer of stolen goods is not "another person" for the second limb of handling, so selling a car you bought innocently is not "disposal for the benefit of another".

Exam tip: Robbery needs force on a person, not on property. Force used only on a bag strap that does not affect the victim may not be enough, while a tug that pulls the victim's arm can be. The examiner will give you the detail that decides it.

Police powers for Theft Act offences

  • Arrest: section 24 PACE lets a constable arrest without warrant for any offence, including summary TWOC, but only where one of the necessity reasons in section 24(5) applies (name, address, preventing injury or loss, protecting a vulnerable person, prompt and effective investigation, or preventing disappearance). See the planned section 24 PACE guide.
  • Stop and search: section 1 of PACE allows a search for stolen or prohibited articles. Prohibited articles include those made, adapted or intended for burglary, theft, TWOC or fraud. See section 1 PACE.
  • Entry and search: section 17 PACE (entry to arrest for an indictable offence), section 18 (premises occupied or controlled by a person arrested for an indictable offence, with an inspector's written authority unless section 18(5) applies) and section 32 (premises where the person was at or immediately before arrest, for an indictable offence).
  • Warrant for stolen goods: section 26 of the Theft Act lets a justice of the peace issue a warrant to search for and seize stolen goods where there is reasonable cause to believe a person has them.

Key fact: TWOC is summary only, so it is not an "indictable offence" for sections 17(1)(b), 18 or 32 PACE. Aggravated vehicle-taking is triable either way, so those powers can apply.

The Crime and Policing Act 2026 will add sections 26A to 26C to the Theft Act, letting an inspector authorise entry without a warrant to search for electronically tracked stolen goods. On 30 October 2026 this was not yet in force. Section 149 of the same Act (possessing electronic devices for vehicle offences) was also not yet in force.

Worked exam scenarios

Scenario 1. HARRIS works in a café. A customer leaves a £20 note on the table and walks out. HARRIS pockets it, believing the customer has gone for good and cannot be traced. Is it theft?

Probably not. Section 2(1)(c) says an appropriation is not dishonest if the person believes the owner cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps. The belief only has to be genuine. A name on a booking would undermine that belief.

Scenario 2. JONES snatches a handbag from a woman's shoulder. The strap pulls her arm back and she stumbles. JONES runs off. What offence?

Robbery. JONES stole the bag, and the force on the strap acted on the victim's body at the time of the theft and in order to steal. Compare P v DPP, where there was no contact with the person.

Scenario 3. SMITH takes a neighbour's car without permission to get to a party, intending to leave it near home in the morning. On the way he clips a parked van, damaging it. He abandons the car, which is later found with a broken wing mirror. What offence?

Aggravated vehicle-taking under section 12A. SMITH committed the basic section 12(1) offence; after the taking and before recovery, the driving caused an accident damaging other property, and the vehicle itself was damaged. Theft is unlikely because SMITH did not intend to deprive the owner permanently.

Common exam traps

  • Ghosh is gone. The dishonesty test is Ivey as applied in Barton and Booth. Any option that relies on what the defendant thought ordinary people would think is wrong.
  • Willing to pay does not make an appropriation honest (section 2(2)).
  • Wild flowers and mushrooms are only stolen if picked for reward, sale or another commercial purpose. Uprooting the whole plant falls outside the exemption.
  • TWOC is summary only and cannot be attempted; the attempted taking of a vehicle is usually charged as vehicle interference instead.
  • Force after the theft is over is assault plus theft, not robbery. Force before the intention to steal is formed is also not robbery.
  • A buyer is not "another person" for the second limb of handling (Bloxham).
  • Going equipped requires the person to be away from their place of abode. A car is only a place of abode where it is parked at a site where the person intends to live.
  • Low-value shoplifting is £200 or less, measured by the sale price, and aggregated where several offences are charged on the same occasion.

Test yourself

Checked against legislation.gov.uk on 30 October 2026, with the CPS Theft Act offences guidance and the Sentencing Council guidelines.

  1. Take the free theft offences topic quiz and note every question where a single word changed the answer.
  2. Sit the free 20-question diagnostic to see how theft compares with your other topics.
  3. When you score well, sit mock 1 under timed conditions. Our guide to sergeants' exam questions explains how the scenarios are built, and the NIE theft quiz gives more practice if you are on the detective route.

10 free theft and related offences practice questions with answers

Try each one, then open the answer. For a timed experience use the free topic quiz.

  1. 1. SPENCER lives full-time in a static caravan. While she is away on holiday for two weeks, DUNN breaks into the caravan and steals her jewellery. Which of the following is correct?

    1. A. This is burglary of a building other than a dwelling, as the occupier was away on holiday
    2. B. This is burglary of a dwelling, as an inhabited vehicle counts even when the occupier is away
    3. C. This is burglary of a dwelling only if the caravan stands on permanent foundations
    4. D. This is not burglary because a caravan is not a building
    Show answer

    B. This is burglary of a dwelling, as an inhabited vehicle counts even when the occupier is away

    Section 9(4) of the Theft Act 1968 applies burglary to an inhabited vehicle or vessel, and treats it as a dwelling for the s.9(3) maximum. It applies whether or not the person who lives in it is there at the time. DUNN's offence is burglary of a dwelling, with a maximum of 14 years.

    Source: Theft Act 1968, s.9(4)

  2. 2. MARSDEN breaks a window and climbs into an empty office building as a trespasser, intending to steal computers. Before he touches anything, an alarm sounds and he leaves empty-handed. Which of the following is correct?

    1. A. MARSDEN commits attempted burglary because nothing was stolen
    2. B. MARSDEN commits burglary under s.9(1)(b) because he entered as a trespasser
    3. C. MARSDEN commits no burglary offence because he left without stealing
    4. D. MARSDEN commits burglary under s.9(1)(a), as he entered intending to steal
    Show answer

    D. MARSDEN commits burglary under s.9(1)(a), as he entered intending to steal

    Under s.9(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968, burglary is complete when the defendant enters a building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to steal, inflict grievous bodily harm or do unlawful damage. Nothing needs to be stolen. MARSDEN's intent at the moment of entry completes the offence.

    Source: Theft Act 1968, s.9(1)(a)

  3. 3. MOSLEY is angry with a work colleague. He takes the colleague's expensive fountain pen from her desk and throws it into a river so that she will never get it back. He gains nothing from doing so. Which of the following is correct?

    1. A. MOSLEY cannot commit theft because he did not act with a view to gain
    2. B. MOSLEY may commit theft, as gain or personal benefit is immaterial
    3. C. MOSLEY commits criminal damage only, because the pen was destroyed
    4. D. MOSLEY commits theft only if he kept the pen for his own benefit
    Show answer

    B. MOSLEY may commit theft, as gain or personal benefit is immaterial

    Section 1(2) of the Theft Act 1968 makes it immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain or for the thief's own benefit. Taking the pen and throwing it away so the owner never recovers it is a dishonest appropriation with an intention to permanently deprive. That is theft, whatever his motive.

    Source: Theft Act 1968, s.1(2)

  4. 4. What is the maximum penalty on indictment for handling stolen goods under s.22 of the Theft Act 1968?

    1. A. 7 years, the same as theft
    2. B. 14 years
    3. C. Life imprisonment
    4. D. 10 years
    Show answer

    B. 14 years

    Section 22(2) of the Theft Act 1968 provides that a person guilty of handling stolen goods is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for up to 14 years. That is twice the seven-year maximum for theft under s.7, which reflects the role handlers play in creating a market for stolen property.

    Source: Theft Act 1968, s.22(2)

  5. 5. Following R v Barton and Booth, which of the following correctly describes how dishonesty is decided in theft where s.2 of the Theft Act 1968 does not apply?

    1. A. Dishonesty is a question of law for the judge, decided by reference to the definitions in s.2
    2. B. The jury first find the defendant's actual knowledge or belief as to the facts, then decide whether his conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people
    3. C. The jury apply the defendant's own standards of honesty, provided his belief that his conduct met those standards was genuinely held
    4. D. The jury decide whether the conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people, and then whether the defendant realised it was dishonest by those standards
    Show answer

    B. The jury first find the defendant's actual knowledge or belief as to the facts, then decide whether his conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people

    In Ivey v Genting Casinos, approved for criminal cases in R v Barton and Booth, the tribunal first ascertains, subjectively, the actual state of the defendant's knowledge or belief as to the facts. It then decides whether his conduct was dishonest by the objective standards of ordinary decent people. The second limb of the old Ghosh test, whether the defendant realised his conduct was dishonest by those standards, no longer applies.

    Source: Theft Act 1968, s.2 (Ivey v Genting; R v Barton and Booth)

  6. 6. Which of the following is correct regarding the penalties under s.8(2) of the Theft Act 1968?

    1. A. Robbery carries a maximum of 14 years, the same as aggravated burglary
    2. B. Robbery and assault with intent to rob both carry a maximum of life imprisonment on indictment
    3. C. Robbery carries life imprisonment, but assault with intent to rob carries a maximum of 10 years
    4. D. Robbery is triable either way where the property stolen is of low value
    Show answer

    B. Robbery and assault with intent to rob both carry a maximum of life imprisonment on indictment

    Section 8(2) of the Theft Act 1968 provides that a person guilty of robbery, or of an assault with intent to rob, is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life. Both are indictable-only offences. The value of the property does not affect the mode of trial.

    Source: Theft Act 1968, s.8(2)

  7. 7. GRANT is in a supermarket. He peels the price label off a cheap bottle of wine and sticks it on an expensive bottle, intending to pay the lower price. A store detective sees him do this and stops him before he reaches the checkout. At what point, if any, did GRANT first appropriate the expensive bottle?

    1. A. When he switched the labels, as that was an assumption of a right of the owner
    2. B. Only when he would have paid the lower price at the checkout
    3. C. Only when he would have carried the bottle out of the store
    4. D. At no point, because the store impliedly consents to customers picking up and handling goods
    Show answer

    A. When he switched the labels, as that was an assumption of a right of the owner

    Section 3(1) of the Theft Act 1968 provides that any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation. Pricing goods is a right of the owner, so swapping the labels is itself an appropriation, and the courts have held that assuming any one of the owner's rights is enough. With dishonesty and an intention to permanently deprive present at that moment, the theft is complete before he reaches the checkout.

    Source: Theft Act 1968, s.3(1)

  8. 8. STEELE tells a shop owner: 'Pay me £500 a month, or a local gang I know will smash your windows. I won't be involved, but I can't stop them unless you pay.' Which of the following is correct?

    1. A. This is robbery, because the shop owner is threatened with violence to property
    2. B. This is blackmail only if the gang he refers to actually exists
    3. C. This cannot be blackmail, because STEELE is not threatening to act himself
    4. D. This can be blackmail, even though STEELE will not carry out the threat himself
    Show answer

    D. This can be blackmail, even though STEELE will not carry out the threat himself

    Section 21(2) of the Theft Act 1968 provides that it is immaterial whether the menaces relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand. A demand backed by the threat that others will cause damage can be a demand with menaces. STEELE acts with a view to gain, and the demand is plainly unwarranted.

    Source: Theft Act 1968, s.21(2)

  9. 9. SHAW takes a bottle of whisky from a shop shelf. As he heads for the door, a security guard steps in front of him, and SHAW pushes the guard aside to get out. The shop owner is not present. Which of the following is correct?

    1. A. This can be robbery only if the guard was injured
    2. B. This can be robbery, because the force may be used on any person
    3. C. This cannot be robbery, because force was not used on the owner of the whisky
    4. D. This is theft and an assault, as the theft was complete before the push
    Show answer

    B. This can be robbery, because the force may be used on any person

    Section 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968 refers to force on 'any person', so it need not be the owner or the person in possession. Pushing the guard aside on the way out, in order to get away with the whisky, can be force at the time of stealing and in order to steal, because the appropriation is still continuing. Whether the force is enough is a question of fact.

    Source: Theft Act 1968, s.8(1)

  10. 10. IRWIN takes a pedal cycle from outside a library without the owner's consent and rides it home, intending to return it the next day. Which of the following is correct?

    1. A. IRWIN commits the s.12(1) offence of taking a conveyance without authority
    2. B. IRWIN commits the separate summary offence under s.12(5) relating to pedal cycles
    3. C. IRWIN commits theft, because a pedal cycle is not a conveyance
    4. D. IRWIN commits no offence because he intended to return the cycle
    Show answer

    B. IRWIN commits the separate summary offence under s.12(5) relating to pedal cycles

    Section 12(5) of the Theft Act 1968 provides that s.12(1) does not apply to pedal cycles. Instead it creates a separate summary offence of taking a pedal cycle without consent or lawful authority for one's own or another's use, or riding one knowing it has been so taken, punishable by a fine not exceeding level 3. An intention to return the cycle does not matter for this offence, but it does mean there is no theft.

    Source: Theft Act 1968, s.12(5)

Frequently asked questions

+What is the definition of theft under the Theft Act 1968?

Section 1(1) says a person is guilty of theft if they dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. Sections 2 to 6 then explain each of the five elements: dishonestly, appropriates, property, belonging to another and intention of permanently depriving.

+What is the maximum sentence for theft in the UK?

Theft under section 1 is triable either way with a maximum of seven years' imprisonment on indictment (section 7). Shop theft of goods worth £200 or less is low-value shoplifting, which is triable only summarily unless an adult defendant elects Crown Court trial.

+What is the difference between theft and robbery?

Robbery under section 8 is theft plus force. The defendant must use force on any person, or put or seek to put any person in fear of force being used then and there, immediately before or at the time of stealing and in order to steal. If any element of theft fails, there is no robbery.

+Is robbery indictable only?

Yes. Robbery and assault with intent to rob are triable only on indictment and carry a maximum of life imprisonment under section 8(2) of the Theft Act 1968.

+What is the test for dishonesty in theft?

Section 2 lists three beliefs that stop an appropriation being dishonest. Outside those, the courts apply the test from Ivey v Genting Casinos, confirmed for criminal cases in R v Barton and Booth: first establish what the defendant actually knew or believed about the facts, then ask whether the conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people.

+Is taking a car without consent theft?

Usually not, because a joyrider rarely intends to deprive the owner permanently. Taking a conveyance without the owner's consent is a separate summary offence under section 12, and aggravated vehicle-taking under section 12A is triable either way. Theft can still be charged where the evidence shows an intention to keep, sell or destroy the vehicle.

+What is going equipped under the Theft Act 1968?

Section 25 makes it an offence, when not at your place of abode, to have with you any article for use in the course of or in connection with any burglary or theft. It is triable either way with a maximum of three years' imprisonment. TWOC counts as theft for this section.

+What did the Theft Act 1978 add?

The Theft Act 1978 created making off without payment (section 3): knowing that payment on the spot is required or expected, dishonestly making off without paying with intent to avoid payment. CPS guidance gives it as triable either way with a two-year maximum.

Revision aid, not legal advice. The College of Policing exams follow the 2027 Blackstone's Police Manuals, so check every point against your manual and the current law on legislation.gov.uk. Police Sergeant Exam is independent and not affiliated with the College of Policing, the Home Office or Oxford University Press.

Keep reading