IANAL, but a careful reading of the case does not support the first part of your sentence. Anderton was convicted, and he did not "take the goods". He did not even complete the transaction, he just switched the bar code and went to the checkout.
It makes me wonder if, under UK law, it's lawful to eat part of a box of cookies (not measured by weight) while rolling your trolley thru the store, and then paying for the box at checkout.
"A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it"
In most cases, it is dishonesty that is the key factor (normal shopping would satisfy the other requirements), and is largely determined by the jury. I would say that there is no dishonesty in your example, and so it is not theft, but I am unsure if there is case law to support this.
Excellent point, but it only states that a person _may_ be dishonest (i.e. it is not a defence to offer to pay when caught).
To determine dishonesty, one must first look to s.2(1). It doesn't really apply here, so the jury must apply the two stage Ghosh test, of which only the first stage usually matters:
1) Is the person's behaviour dishonest by the standards of ordinary, honest people? If not, then there is no theft.
I would argue that most juries would not find a person to be dishonest in these circumstances (though it is possible that they might).
I'm in the UK and I have, a few times, picked up a can of coke because I was thirsty and opened it while in the store, gone and grabbed more items and then scanned everything (including the coke I drank a bit of) through. It isn't illegal.
British law is all about intent, if I intend to deprive the store of that can of coke then it is indeed theft. However, if I drink a little bit before paying it doesn't. The store have to prove I intended to deprive them of it (which I wouldn't do)
There is no need to actually take the goods. If you dishonestly appropriate the item (and switching the price tags is an appropriation) with _intent_ to permanently deprive, then the theft has has taken place.
Typically, it is much easier to show intent if the person actually leaves with the goods (rather than, for example, being stopped at the till), but there is no need for them to do so as a matter of law.
Can you go in to this a bit. The Theft Act 1968 requires you to appropriate the goods at least. I don't think you do this until you exit the premises with the goods.
Indeed in the current situation if I were to intend to test whether the price would be accepted at the till and then leave the goods in the store it can be seen clearly that in verity there was no intent to permanently deny even if the goods were considered to be appropriated.
I'd argue that switching the tag is not yet an appropriation - only departing with the goods when having failed to pay [through deception] the right amount.
Here it seems the mens rea can't be demonstrated to exist - beyond reasonable doubt - unless the actus rea of leaving the store with the goods is shown.
"intent to defraud" would be very difficult to defend yourself against. Publishing the means by which others could commit fraud might be classed as "incitement". I'd say Tesco's lawyers are about to have a little fun.
A howto is not incitement. If I tell you how to tie a noose I'm not inciting you to commit suicide, nor even to tie a noose. Very expensive barristers can probably twist a situation sufficiently to get an incitement charge though.
It makes me wonder if, under UK law, it's lawful to eat part of a box of cookies (not measured by weight) while rolling your trolley thru the store, and then paying for the box at checkout.