What is the ratio in Oxford v Moss?

Confidential information, as distinct from the physical medium containing it, does not constitute 'property' capable of being stolen under the Theft Act 1968.

What did the court decide in Oxford v Moss?

The court held that the student could not be convicted of theft for accessing exam questions, as the confidential information was not property within the statutory definition.

Why is Oxford v Moss important for theft law?

It established clear boundaries for what constitutes property in theft law, particularly relevant for modern cases involving information, data, and intellectual property rights.

What is the ratio in Oxford v Moss?

Confidential information, as distinct from the physical medium containing it, does not constitute 'property' capable of being stolen under the Theft Act 1968.

What did the court decide in Oxford v Moss?

The court held that the student could not be convicted of theft for accessing exam questions, as the confidential information was not property within the statutory definition.

Why is Oxford v Moss important for theft law?

It established clear boundaries for what constitutes property in theft law, particularly relevant for modern cases involving information, data, and intellectual property rights.

Criminal1 min read

Oxford v Moss

(1979) 68 Cr App R 183Queen's Bench Division1979

Cite this case in OSCOLA →All Criminal cases →

“Confidential information cannot be stolen as it does not constitute property under theft law.”

Facts

Moss, an engineering student, acquired a copy of his upcoming exam paper and read the questions before returning it. He was charged with theft of the confidential information contained in the exam questions.

Issues

Whether confidential information constitutes 'property' that can be stolen under s.1 of the Theft Act 1968.

Held

The Divisional Court held that confidential information is not 'property' within the meaning of the Theft Act 1968 and therefore cannot be stolen.

Significance

This case established important limits on the definition of property in theft law, particularly relevant in the modern era of information technology and data protection. It demonstrates the boundaries of traditional theft concepts when applied to intangible assets.

Read the full brief — free

You're reading the free summary of Oxford v Moss. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.

Create free account Already have one? Sign in

No card required. Free forever.

OSCOLA Citation

Oxford v Moss (1979) 68 Cr App R 183

Criminal LawTheftPropertyConfidential InformationIntangible Property

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

LLBGDLSQE1

More Criminal cases

R v Reece Martin Kelly

[2026] EWCA Crim 268

R v Richard Alexander Welsh

[2026] EWCA Crim 466

R v Robert Michael Thomas

[2026] EWCA Crim 305

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.