R v Rostron [2003] All ER (D) 269
Theft of golf balls belonging to a golf club despite being abandoned by the original owners
Facts
The defendants (R and C) was charged and convicted with stealing golf balls from a stretch of water at a golf course.
Issues
Both R and C appealed against their conviction. They argued that the golf balls were abandoned by their original owners and, thus, removal of them could not amount to theft. Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 requires it to be proven that the property in question “belongs to another.” They also argued that the trial judge gave insufficient regard to the necessary mental element of the crime of theft.
Decision/Outcome
The Court held that even though the golf balls had been abandoned by their original owners, it was clear that the golf club itself had the control of lost balls for their own purposes and, as such, the golf balls were the club’s property in terms of the 1968 Act. Furthermore, the trial judge had not given insufficient regard to the necessary mental element of the crime of theft. The trial judge had given a clear direction that the prosecution had to prove that the defendants knew they were not allowed to go on to the golf course and remove the balls. If this was established, then the necessary element of dishonesty had been proven. And, in the circumstances, it was difficult to see how R and C could genuinely have believed that the golf balls had been abandoned.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary remains legally accurate. R v Rostron [2003] All ER (D) 269 is a Court of Appeal decision and continues to be cited as good authority for two propositions under the Theft Act 1968: first, that property apparently abandoned by its original owner may nonetheless “belong to another” within section 1 if a third party (here, the golf club) exercises control over it with the intention of asserting rights over it; and second, that the dishonesty element requires the jury to consider whether the defendant genuinely believed the property was abandoned. There have been no subsequent statutory amendments to the relevant provisions of the Theft Act 1968, nor any later appellate decisions that have overruled or materially qualified Rostron. The article is suitable as an introduction to the case, though readers should note that the broader law on dishonesty in theft has been significantly developed by the Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67, which replaced the Ghosh test with an objective standard. This does not affect the outcome in Rostron itself, but students should be aware of the current test for dishonesty when applying the case to problem questions.
