It was argued by the defence that Section 4 of the Theft Act 1968 did not define a class of intangible property beyond a chose in action, and therefore information per se was not protected by the Theft Act 1968.
The defense posited that Section 4 of the Theft Act 1968 only defined a class of tangible possessions beyond mere claims to money, and therefore information in its own right was not shielded by the Theft Act 1968.