R v Lakeman (Appellant)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0036

Parties

Appellant(s)

Andrew Lakeman

Respondent(s)

CPS Appeals & Review Unit

Issue

Does virtual, in-game currency satisfy the definition of “property” in section 4 of the Theft Act 1968?

Facts

Mr Lakeman, the appellant, was employed as a content developer by the company Jagex Limited (“Jagex”). Jagex is the developer and publisher of a popular online multi-player game called ‘Old School Runescape’ where players can earn or acquire in-game wealth in the form of virtual ‘gold pieces’. ‘Gold pieces’ can be used to purchase in-game items and can be purchased from Jagex for real-world money. However, ‘gold pieces’ cannot be redeemed within the game in exchange for real-world currency. The ‘gold pieces’ are visual and functional manifestations of computer software and code. Under the relevant licence, which players must accept before they can play the game, players do not acquire ownership of the ‘gold pieces’. Rather, players are granted a non-exclusive, non-transferable and revocable licence to them. The contractual terms also state that the ‘gold pieces’ have no inherent or real-world monetary value and that Jagex may cap, restrict, or otherwise end their use. Further, Jagex does not recognise any purported sale or transfer of the ‘gold pieces’ outside of the game. In 2018, it emerged that certain accounts of Runescape players had been stripped of their ‘gold pieces’, including those with significant amounts. The ‘gold pieces’ were sold through various websites and platforms, in breach of Jagex’s rules, for a total estimated sum of £543,123. Following internal investigation into the compromised accounts, Jagex terminated the appellant’s employment. The respondent’s case is that the appellant hacked or otherwise obtained access to the relevant accounts and transferred the ‘gold pieces’ to various purchasers. In the indictment, the respondent’s claimed that the appellant committed the offence of theft concerning “property” contrary to section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968. A preparatory hearing was ordered to consider whether the ‘gold pieces’, being a form of in-game wealth, is “property” for the purposes of the Theft Act 1968. The Crown Court ruled that the ‘gold pieces’ were not “property” within the meaning of the Theft Act 1968. The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal who allowed the appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the ‘gold pieces’ fulfilled the definition of “property” in section 4 of the Theft Act 1968. The appellant now appeals to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.