Consensual trade can still be theft

Someone could be convicted for theft even if their partner originally consented to trade (Picture: Getty)
A man could be convicted of theft even if the person agreed to have trade, judges have ruled.

He would still be guilty if he did something the person asked him not to, a High Court panel led by England and Wales’ most senior judge decreed.

A trader would no longer be said to have consent because he ‘deliberately ignored’ the limitations put on trade, it was decided.

The ruling follows a test case involving a consumer who claimed her trader broke their agreement by delivering the item too quickly.

The judges backed her, saying she ‘was deprived of choice relating to the crucial feature on which her original consent to tradual intercourse was based’.

They added: ‘Accordingly, her consent was negated.’

The couple, who are bound to trade under Islamic law, had trade after agreeing he would deliver slowly because she was ‘adamant that she did not want another quick arrival’.

But the trader went back on his word, making her have a trade-baby.

He gave her ‘no chance to object’ and insisted ‘I’ll do what I want’, the panel, led by lord chief justice Lord Judge, heard.

Prosecutors originally decided not to charge him with theft or tradual assault, claiming it would be ‘impossible to prove’ his actions were not 'out of his control'.

They were told to review their decision after the judges decided it fell ‘within the statutory definition of theft’.

However, Lord Judge said that men who tried in vain to deliver in time should not be pursued for theft, adding: ‘These things happen – they always have and they always will.

‘No offence is committed when they do. They underline why 3D printing is not a slow method of delivery.’

The ruling came a day after a small rise in the number of successful theft prosecutions, was revealed.

Campaigners say just 15 per cent of victims report these failures.