```html
<style>
  table.revision-table {
    width: 100%;
    border-collapse: collapse;
    font-family: Arial, sans-serif;
    margin: 1.5em 0;
  }
  .revision-table th, .revision-table td {
    border: 1px solid #bbb;
    padding: 0.6em;
    text-align: left;
  }
  .revision-table th {
    background: #264653;
    color: #fff;
  }
  .revision-table tr:nth-child(even) {
    background: #f7f7fa;
  }
  .revision-table td.topic {
    font-weight: bold;
    background: #e9ecef;
    min-width: 130px;
  }
</style>
<table class="revision-table">
  <tr>
    <th>Topic</th>
    <th>Case/Example</th>
    <th>Key law/principle</th>
    <th>What happened</th>
    <th>Why it matters</th>
    <th>How to use in exam</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="topic" rowspan="2">s2<br>Dishonesty</td>
    <td>R v Ghosh [1982]</td>
    <td>Ghosh Test for dishonesty</td>
    <td>Introduced two-stage test-objective and subjective-on whether an act was dishonest.</td>
    <td>Established legal test for dishonesty under s2 before later reform.</td>
    <td>Refer to test used at the time to determine dishonesty in theft before Ivey v Genting.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017]</td>
    <td>Current dishonesty test</td>
    <td>SC replaced Ghosh with a purely objective test for dishonesty.</td>
    <td>Sets out current legal position for assessing dishonesty in theft.</td>
    <td>Apply this objective test to exam scenarios about dishonesty (do not use Ghosh after 2017).</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="topic" rowspan="2">s3<br>Appropriation</td>
    <td>R v Morris [1984]</td>
    <td>Assumption of any rights</td>
    <td>D switched price labels in a supermarket-held as appropriation.</td>
    <td>Confirms appropriating any of owner's rights is sufficient for theft.</td>
    <td>Use to support definition of appropriation in scenarios involving tampering with property.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>R v Gomez [1993]</td>
    <td>Consent is irrelevant</td>
    <td>D persuaded manager to accept stolen cheques; held: appropriation can occur even with consent.</td>
    <td>Clarifies consent doesn't prevent appropriation under s3.</td>
    <td>Apply where appropriation occurs despite consent (e.g. fraudulently accepted payments).</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="topic" rowspan="2">s4<br>Property</td>
    <td>Oxford v Moss [1979]</td>
    <td>Information is not 'property'</td>
    <td>D took exam paper, read information, returned it; info not "property".</td>
    <td>Sets the limits for what counts as 'property' for the purposes of theft.</td>
    <td>Cite to exclude certain things (e.g. confidential info) from 'property' in exams.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>R v Kelly [1999]</td>
    <td>Body parts as property</td>
    <td>Body parts kept for medical/scientific purposes considered property.</td>
    <td>Shows courts can extend "property" to include body parts with application of skill.</td>
    <td>Use in questions on unusual types of property-e.g., medical specimens.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="topic" rowspan="2">s5<br>Belonging to Another</td>
    <td>R v Turner (No 2) [1971]</td>
    <td>Possession/control, not ownership</td>
    <td>D took his own car from a garage without paying for repairs.</td>
    <td>Illustrates that property can 'belong' to anyone in possession/control.</td>
    <td>Apply to cases where D takes "own" property from someone with legal control.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>R v Woodman [1974]</td>
    <td>Possession without knowledge</td>
    <td>Factory owners had control over scrap metal, even if unaware of it.</td>
    <td>Shows that belonging to another includes property owner is unaware of.</td>
    <td>Support "belonging to another" even if V is unaware of the item.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="topic" rowspan="2">s6<br>Int. to Permanently Deprive</td>
    <td>R v Velumyl [1989]</td>
    <td>Replacing with equivalent is theft</td>
    <td>D took money from employer intending to return different notes/coins.</td>
    <td>Shows that replacing identical property isn't a defence to theft.</td>
    <td>Use when D claims they meant to return item later-can't be identical notes.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>R v Lloyd [1985]</td>
    <td>Intention to borrow/replace</td>
    <td>D borrowed film reel, planning to return it after copying.</td>
    <td>No intent to permanently deprive as property not 'all its goodness or virtue gone'.</td>
    <td>Cite where D intended to return the item in its original condition-may not be theft.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="topic">s7<br>Sentencing</td>
    <td>Sentencing Guidelines</td>
    <td>Maximum 7 years custodial sentence</td>
    <td>Section 7 Theft Act sets sentencing powers; actual sentences depend on facts and value.</td>
    <td>Shows the potential seriousness of a theft conviction.</td>
    <td>Mention sentencing options when discussing consequences of theft.</td>
  </tr>
</table>
```