A-G Ref (No 1 of 1983) [1985] QB 182
Theft of property which was received as a result of the mistake of another
Facts
The defendant was a policewoman who was mistakenly paid an extra £74 in her wages by direct debit into her bank account. The employer made no demand for repayment. The defendant initially didn’t know about the overpayment but there was some evidence that she later discovered the error and decided to say nothing about it. However, she didn’t remove the money from her bank account.
Issues
The defendant was tried on a count of stealing the £74 from her employer contrary to the Theft Act 1968. At the close of evidence for the prosecution, the trial judge stopped the case and directed the jury to acquit. A reference was made by the Attorney General for the Court’s opinion on a point of law. The key question was whether a conviction for theft was possible even where the money had not been withdrawn.
Decision/Outcome
The Court held that the £74 in question amounted to a “thing in action” in terms of section 4(1) of the Theft Act 1968 and was therefore “property” which was capable of being stolen. Furthermore, section 5(4) of the 1968 Act applied because the money had been received as a result of the mistake of another and in accordance with that section there was an obligation to make restoration. In the circumstances, this obligation to restore became operative from the moment that the policewoman had become aware of the error. On the facts, it remained for the prosecution to prove that there was an appropriation and dishonest intent.
Updated 19 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the decision in Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1983) [1985] QB 182. The legal principles described remain good law. The case continues to be the leading authority on the operation of section 5(4) of the Theft Act 1968, establishing that an overpayment received by mistake can give rise to an obligation to restore, and that a chose in action (such as a credit in a bank account) constitutes “property” capable of being stolen under section 4(1) of the Act.
The Theft Act 1968 remains in force and sections 4(1) and 5(4) are unchanged. The article correctly notes that appropriation and dishonest intent must still be proved by the prosecution; these requirements continue to be governed by the 1968 Act as interpreted in subsequent case law, including R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053 and, more recently, the Supreme Court’s decision in Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67, which revised the test for dishonesty. Students should note that following Ivey, the subjective limb of the old Ghosh direction no longer applies; dishonesty is now assessed by an objective standard (whether the defendant’s conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people), having first established the defendant’s actual knowledge and belief. This does not affect the correctness of this case summary but is relevant context for any assessment of the dishonesty element.
