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.
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.