[stordoff]

The Theft Act 1968 s.1(1) defines theft as:

"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.

[linker3000]

Well, to be pedantic:

S.2(2) Theft Act 1968 states that a person may be dishonest notwithstanding a willingness to pay.

You could also fall foul of "Doing an act inconsistent with the rights of the owner"

(IANAL)

[stordoff]

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).