if mens rea for theft forms later, is it dishonest?Watch this thread
(a) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or
(b) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or
(c) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.
As for the actus reus and men’s rea materialising at different times you need to talk about continuity with the leading case R v Thabo-Meli which states that so long as both of the men’s rea and actus reus form (bit necessarily at the same instant but still run along side each other) then the crime can still be committed.
you rent a car and must return it by 4pm. At 3:50 you are taking it back to the garage obviously driving the car. But at the last moment you decide you don’t want to take it back to the garage and you would want to keep it for yourself. This has the actus reus because after 4pm you have appropriated the car by driving it as the owner would. The men’s rea has developed later and after you have made an agreement to rent the car and materialised when you decided to not take it back as you have decided to permanently deprive the company of their car back, this is dishonest as you’ve gone back on the original agreement. Sorry if your situation is not the same this is just the example I found easiest to explain...