From: John Boyle 
Newsgroups: uk.finance uk.legal
Subject: Re: Petrol Station rip off
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:51:48 +0100

In message <598s89F2k5921U1@mid.individual.net>, Alex  
writes
>At 12:15:57 on 25/04/2007, John Boyle delighted uk.legal by announcing:
>
>> In message <5964n6F2ft3ftU1@mid.individual.net>, Alex
>>  writes
>> > > No.
>> >
>> > Yes.  It is only theft if there is a dishonest appropriation with
>> > intent to permanently deprive.  If you honestly appropriated the
>> > fuel and/or you had no intent to permanently deprive then there's
>> > no theft.
>>
>> Not quite. If you have the intent to 'make off' without paying for a
>> service for which payment is due on the spot, with the purpose of
>> avoiding payment, then that is theft. The concept of permanently
>> depriving is not relevant in this section.
>
>How can the definition of theft not be relevant to the question of
>whether theft has occurred?

You are using a narrow definition of theft, there are others :

Theft Act 1978 s(3)  :

"3. Making off without payment.— (1) Subject to subsection (3) below, 
a person who, knowing that payment on the spot for any goods supplied or 
service done is required or expected from him, dishonestly makes off 
without having paid as required or expected and with intent to avoid 
payment of the amount due shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) For purposes of this section “payment on the spot” includes 
payment at the time of collecting goods on which work has been done or 
in respect of which service has been provided.
(3) Subsection (1) above shall not apply where the supply of the goods 
or the doing of the service is contrary to law, or where the service 
done is such that payment is not legally enforceable.
(4) Any person may arrest without warrant anyone who is, or whom he, 
with reasonable cause, suspects to be, committing or attempting to 
commit an offence under this section."

You will see that 'intention to permanently deprive' does not 
necessarily come into it.
-- 
John Boyle