Theft, burglary and robbery
Theft from a shop or stall
England & Wales. Elements, mode of trial, maximum and defences — not a charging or outcome predictor.
- Triable
- Either way (low-value shoplifting may be treated as summary-only under MCA 1980 s.22A)
- Maximum penalty
- 7 years' custody (6 months for low-value shoplifting treated as summary-only)
Actus reus
- Dishonest appropriation of goods from a shop or stall belonging to another.
- Same Theft Act s.1 elements as general theft, in a retail/stall context.
Mens rea
- Dishonesty (Ivey test).
- Intention to permanently deprive.
Verified case law
Ivey v Genting Casinos[2017] UKSC 67
The Ghosh test is no longer law; dishonesty is assessed objectively after establishing the defendant's actual belief about the facts.
DPP v Gomez[1993] AC 442
Appropriation can occur even where the owner consented if obtained by deception.
R v Lloyd[1985] 1 QB 653
Borrowing can amount to theft if there is intention to treat the goods as own to dispose of.
Defences
Honest belief in right / consent · No intention to permanently deprive · Not dishonest · Goods paid for / left to pay
Sentencing Council
Sentencing Council guideline effective 1 February 2016. Offence range: discharge to 3 years' custody.
At the police station
Extremely common. Check value (low-value shoplifting threshold), CCTV, and whether security tags/foil are alleged. Take clear instructions on payment intent.
When to involve a rep or solicitor
Police station advice is free under legal aid and is not means-tested.
Authoritative sources for this page
Statute plus Sentencing Council (and CPS where listed) are the two primary sources we used for mode of trial, maximum and elements. Case links are from our verified registry only.
- Statute:Theft Act 1968, s.1 ↗
- Sentencing Council:Sentencing Council definitive guideline ↗
- CPS:CPS — Theft Act offences ↗
- Case law:Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67 ↗
- Case law:DPP v Gomez [1993] AC 442 ↗