It is no defence for a man to say, ‘I knew that what I was doing is generally regarded as dishonest; but I do not regard it as dishonest myself. Therefore I am not guilty.’ What he is, however, entitled to say is, ‘I did not know that anybody would regard what I was doing as dishonest’.

An act authorized by the owner of goods constitutes an appropriation of goods if such consent had been obtained by deception.

The House of Lords held that the Gomez principle could apply to an indefeasible title to property where it was acquired by means of taking a gift from a person who was easily influenced. Therefore, there was an appropriation under the Theft Act 1968.

The Supreme Court expressed the view that Ghosh should no longer be used as the test of dishonesty. In its place they suggested that D was dishonest if, on the facts as D believed them to be, D would be found dishonest by reasonable and honest people.