According, to the second limb of the case law, in order to establish the dishonesty of the accused, it would have to be proved that the accused would himself realize that what he did was dishonest according to the standards of reasonable and honest people.
In this case, both of the situations are certainly fulfilled as Debbie herself would realize what she did was dishonest as she took the ring from an innocent person in order to sell it for her use and purpose. Since, the crime has been proved, now comes the role of the statuary acts in order to convict this person accordingly of the sort of crime convicted.
According to the section number eight of the Theft Act 1968, the person is found to be guilty of an offence when the person steals and in order to steal, subjects the person to some sort of force or seeks to create the feeling of force being used. In this case, Debbie did not use force but when the defendant awoke created the feeling of fear of death as she told the defendant that if she reacted, death was certain.
Hence, Debbie clearly fulfilled the criteria of the statute and hence, would be convicted of the crime as according to section one of the same act, the person is found to be guilty when he or she take property with the intention of permanently depriving the person of it. So, according to this definition of the word guilty in section one of the Theft Act 1968, Debbie is clearly guilty.