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).
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).