The Theft Act 1978 supplemented the earlier deception offences in English law contained in sections 15 and 16 of the Theft Act 1968 by reforming some aspects of those offences and adding new provisions. English law is the legal system of England and Wales, and is the basis of Common law legal systems used in most Commonwealth countriesand the Common law refers to law and the corresponding legal system developed through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive A summary offense, also known as a petty crime, is a criminal act in some Common law jurisdictions that can be proceeded with summarily without the right In many Common law Jurisdictions (eg the United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland, Canada, United States, India, A hybrid offence, dual offence, Crown option offence, dual procedure offence, or wobbler are the special class offences in the Common law Regulatory offences or quasi-criminal offences are a class of crime in which the standard for proving Culpability has been lowered so a Mens rea A lesser included offense, in Criminal law, is a crime for which all of the elements necessary to impose Liability are also elements found in a more serious crime Actus reus, sometimes called the external element or the objective element of a crime is the Latin term for the "guilty act" which when proved Causation is the "causal relationship between conduct and result In Criminal law, mens rea the Latin term for "guilty mind" is usually one of the necessary elements of a Crime. In the Criminal law, intention is one of the three general classes of Mens rea necessary to constitute a conventional as opposed to In English Criminal law, intention is one of the types of Mens rea ( Latin for "guilty mind" that when accompanied by an In the Criminal law, recklessness (also called unchariness) is one of the four possible classes of mental state constituting Mens rea (the In the Criminal law, criminal negligence is one of the three general classes of Mens rea ( Latin for "guilty mind" element required In the Criminal law, corporate liability determines the extent to which a Corporation as a fictitious person can be liable for the acts and omissions The legal principle of vicarious liability applies to hold one person liable for the actions of another when engaged in some form of joint or collective activity In Criminal law, strict liability is liability for which Mens rea ( Latin for "guilty mind" does not have to be proven in relation In the Criminal law, an omission, or failure to act will constitute an Actus reus ( Latin for "guilty act" and give rise to liability In Western Jurisprudence, concurrence, (or contemporaneity or simultaneity) is the apparent need to prove the simultaneous occurrence Ignorantia juris non excusat or Ignorantia legis neminem excusat ( Latin for " Ignorance of the Law does not excuse" In English Criminal law, incitement is an anticipatory Common law offence and is the act of persuading encouraging instigating pressuring or threatening In the Criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between Natural persons to break the law at some time in the future and in some cases with at least one overt act An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a Crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal Attempt crimes are crimes where the defendant's actions have the form of the actual enaction of the crime itself the actions must go beyond mere preparation In Criminal law, the doctrine of common purpose, common design or joint enterprise refers to the situation where two or more people embark on a project In the Criminal law, consent may be an Excuse and prevent the defendant from incurring Liability for what was done For duress in US law see Duress Duress in English criminal law is a complete common law defence operating in favour of those who commit For the discussion on general principles and policy see Necessity In English law, the defence of necessity recognises that there may In English Criminal law, the defence of self-defence provides for the right of people to act in a manner that would be otherwise unlawful in order to preserve the For a description of the general principles see Provocation (legal. For the law in other Criminal jurisdictions see Diminished responsibility. The M'Naghten Rules (pronounced and sometimes spelled McNaughton) were the first serious attempt to Codify and rationalise the attitude of the criminal law towards In Criminal law, a common assault is a Crime when the Victim apprehends immediate use of unlawful violence by the Defendant or the Defendant Battery is a term used by the Common law jurisdictions which involves an Injury or other Contact upon the Person of another in a manner likely Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (often abbreviated to Assault O Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm (often abbreviated to GBH) is a phrase used in English Criminal law which was introduced in sections 18 and 20 The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (24 & 25 Vict c100 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In English law, murder is considered the most serious form of Homicide, in which one person kills another either intending to cause death or intending to For a discussion of the law in other countries see Manslaughter In the English law of Homicide, manslaughter is a less serious Corporate manslaughter is a Criminal offence in English law, being an act of Homicide committed by a company. Harassment refers to a wide spectrum of offensive behaviour The term commonly refers to behaviour intended to disturb or upset and when the term is used in a legal sense it refers In English law causing criminal damage was originally a Common law offence. In English law causing criminal damage was originally a Common law offence. The Public Order Act 1986 creates offences commonly used by United Kingdom police to deal with public disorder and Violence. For the law of Tort, see Nuisance In the English Criminal law, public nuisance is a class of Common law offence The Theft Act 1968 (1968 c60 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, governing most of the general property offences in English law. In Criminal law, theft (also known as stealing or filching) is the illegal taking of another person's Property without that person's freely-given Dishonesty is a word which in common usage may be defined as the act or to act without honesty a lack of probity to cheat lying or being deliberately deceptive lacking in Robbery is the Crime of seizing Property through Violence or Intimidation. A TWOC can also be a medical procedure - a trial without Catheter TWOC is an Acronym standing for Taking Without Owner's Consent. In English law, the main deception offences are defined in the Theft Act 1968 (TA68 the Theft Act 1978 and the Theft (Amendment Act 1996 Blackmail is the crime of threatening to reveal substantially true information about a person to the public a family member or associates unless a demand made upon the In English Criminal law, handling takes place after the Theft is completed and is committed by a fence or other person who helps the thief to realise Forgery is the process of making adapting or imitating objects statistics or documents (see False document) with the intent to deceive. The Fraud Act 2006 (2006 c35 is an Act of Parliament in the United Kingdom, affecting England and Wales and Northern Ireland. Computer crime, Cybercrime, e-crime, hi-tech crime or electronic crime generally refers to criminal activity where a Computer Rape, also referred to as Sexual assault, is an Assault by a person involving Sexual intercourse with or Sexual penetration of another person In Criminal law, kidnapping is the taking away or Asportation of a person against the person's will usually to hold the person in False imprisonment Bribery, a form of pecuniary corruption is an act usually implying money or gift given that alters the behaviour of the recipient in ways not consistent with the duties of that person Perjury, also known as forswearing, is the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under Oath or Affirmation in a The crime of obstruction of justice includes crimes committed by Judges Prosecutors attorneys general, and elected officials in general Criminal procedure refers to the legal process for adjudicating claims that someone has violated Criminal law. A contract is an exchange of promises between two or more parties to do or refrain from doing an act which is enforceable in a court of law Tort law is the name given to a body of law that creates and provides remedies for civil wrongs that do not arise out of Contractual duties Property law is the area of Law that governs the various forms of Ownership in Real property (land as distinct from personal or movable possessions In Common law, a will or testament is a document by which a person (the Testator) regulates the rights of others over his or her Property The law of trusts and estates is generally considered the body of Law which governs the management of personal affairs and the Disposition of Property of The Law of evidence governs the use of Testimony (eg oral or written statements such as an Affidavit) and exhibits (e In English law, the main deception offences are defined in the Theft Act 1968 (TA68 the Theft Act 1978 and the Theft (Amendment Act 1996 The Theft Act 1968 (1968 c60 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, governing most of the general property offences in English law. Sections 1 and 2 were repealed on 15th January 2007 with the implementation of the Fraud Act 2006. The Fraud Act 2006 (2006 c35 is an Act of Parliament in the United Kingdom, affecting England and Wales and Northern Ireland. NB: Sections 1 and 2. - Sections 4(2)(a) and Section 5(1) Theft Act 1978 and Theft Act 1968 Sections 15, 15A, 15B and 16. In section 18(1), “15, 16 or”. Section 20(2). In section 20(3), “deception” has the same meaning as in section 15 of this Act, and”. Section 24A(3) and (4). In section 25(5), “, and “cheat” means an offence under section 15 of this Act”. were repealed under Schedule 3 of the Fraud Act 2006. [1]
Contents |
Obtaining services by deception
Section 1 (as amended by the Theft (Amendment) Act 1996), provides:
- (1) A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains services from another shall be guilty of an offence.
- (2) It is an obtaining of services where the other is induced to confer a benefit by doing some act, or causing or permitting some act to be done, on the understanding that the benefit has been or will be paid for.
- (3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2) above, it is an obtaining of services where the other is induced to make a loan, or to cause or permit a loan to be made, on the understanding that any payment (whether by way of interest or otherwise) will be or has been made in respect of the loan. "
There must be a deception which, according to s5(1), has the same meaning as in section 15(4) of the Theft Act 1968, i. e.
- any deception (whether deliberate or reckless) by words or conduct as to fact or as to law, including a deception as to the present intentions of the person using the deception or any other person. This deception must be the cause of the obtaining (see the discussion on causation in deception offences). In English law, the main deception offences are defined in the Theft Act 1968 (TA68 the Theft Act 1978 and the Theft (Amendment Act 1996 The defendant must obtain a service as defined in s1(2), i. e. the victim must confer a benefit on the defendant (or another). The 'services' must be non-gratuitous, i. A service is the non-material equivalent of a good. A service provision is an economic activity that does not result in Ownership, and this is what differentiates e. the benefits must be provided by the victim of the deception in the expectation that they are to be paid for at commercial rates (see s1(2)). It must be conferred by the doing, causing, or permitting of some act; a failure to act which confers a benefit is not sufficient. Thus, a person who employs a lawyer or accountant without ever intending to pay, may commit an offence under s1. A lawyer, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is "a person learned in the law as an attorney, Counsel or Solicitor; a person An accountant is a practitioner of Accountancy, which is the measurement disclosure or provision of assurance about financial information that helps managers investors But a person who lies to a neighbour to secure the loan of a power drill does not commit an offence because the benefit is not obtained on the understanding that it has been or will be paid for. In R v Halai (1983) Crim LR 624, the defendant made false statements in an application for a mortgage and thereby obtained a survey, the opening of an account and a mortgage advance. Note that the Theft (Amendment) Act 1996 introduced s. 1(3) specifically to provide that a loan amounts to a service. This dispenses with that part of the decision in Halai (which had, in any event, been overruled by R v Graham (1997) prior to the Act) As to the opening of an account, contrast R v Shortland [1995] Crim LR 893 in which the Court of Appeal held that, on the evidence presented, opening bank accounts under false names did not amount to the s1 offence, but suggested that it might have done if evidence that it had to be paid for had been presented. The Court of Appeal of England and Wales is the second most senior court in the English legal system, with only the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords above The mens rea for all offences is dishonesty. In Criminal law, mens rea the Latin term for "guilty mind" is usually one of the necessary elements of a Crime. Dishonesty is a word which in common usage may be defined as the act or to act without honesty a lack of probity to cheat lying or being deliberately deceptive lacking in
Evasion of liability by deception
Section 2 provides:
- (1) Subject to subsection (2) below, where a person by any deception
- (a) dishonestly secures the remission of the whole or part of any existing liability to make a payment, whether his own liability or another's; or
- (b) with intent to make permanent default in whole or in part on any existing liability to make a payment, or with intent to let another do so, dishonestly induces the creditor or any person claiming payment on behalf of the creditor to wait for payment (whether or not the due date for payment is deferred) or to forgo payment; or
- (c) dishonestly obtains any exemption from or abatement of liability to make a payment;
- he shall be guilty of an offence.
- (2) For the purposes of this section 'liability' means legally enforceable liability; and subsection (1) shall not apply in relation to a liability that has not been accepted or established to pay compensation for a wrongful act or omission. "
- (3) for purposes of subsection (1)(b) a person induced to take in payment a cheque or other security for money by way of conditional satisfaction of a pre-existing liability is to be treated not as being paid but as being induced to wait for payment.
- (4) For purposes of subsection (1)(c) "obtains" includes obtaining for another or enabling another to obtain.
Section 2(1) is divided into three parts, all of which require both that a deception caused the obtaining, which may be for oneself or for another, and that there is a liability to pay which is legally-enforceable. All three also require proof that the creditor is deceived into releasing the defendant from the obligation to pay in some way. (Contrast the previous law represented by DPP v Ray which, for policy reasons, held that merely running out of a restaurant without positively deceiving someone was nevertheless an offence.
Remission of a debt
Section 2(1)(a) covers the deception which dishonestly secures the remission of the whole or part of an existing liability to make a payment. Unlike the other two subsections, this requires that the victim knows that a liability exists and knows how much he or she is remitting. It does not cover situations where the defendant tricks the victim into believing that no money is owing (ss2(1)(b) and (c) do cover this situation). If A borrows £50 from B and, when repayment is due, claims that a change of circumstances makes it impossible for him to repay some or all of the money; this deception persuades B to forgive the loan, or to accept £10 in full satisfaction (Criminal Law Revision Committee (CLRC), Thirteenth Report, para. 13). In R v Jackson (1983) Crim LR 618 (CA) Jackson tendered a stolen credit card to pay for petrol and other goods, and it was accepted by a trader, who then looked to the issuing credit card company for payment and not to the person tendering the card. This was held to dishonestly secure the remission of an existing liability and Jackson was convicted. For these purposes, the existing liability to make a payment may be the defendant's own liability or another's.
The provisions of s2(2) clarifiy that s2(1) does not apply where the liability has not been "accepted or established to pay compensation for a wrongful act or omission". This avoids the criminal law being a default liability for civil proceedings. Thus, if X lies about an accident to avoid a claim of negligence, no offence is committed. Negligence (Lat negligentia from negligere to neglect literally "not to pick up" is a legal concept in the Common law legal systems usually used to The claimant can commence civil proceedings once the deception is discovered (CLRC, Thirteenth Report, para 16).
Delaying payment of a debt
Like s2(1)(a), this requires an existing liability to make payment but, unlike (a), it does not require that the creditor knows that he or she is "letting the defendant off". In R v Holt & Lee (1981) Crim LR 499 (CA) the defendants ate a meal in a restaurant which cost £3. 65. When presented with the bill, they claimed that another waitress had already taken a £5 note from the table. Unfortunately, an off-duty policeman had overheard their planning. They were both convicted of an attempt by deception to induce the creditor to forego payment with intent to make permanent default. Their appeal against conviction was dismissed. The section is also concerned with dishonestly inducing a creditor to wait for payment. In many circumstances, this means that ss2(1)(a) and (b) will overlap, but there are also situations in which they do not. Thus, creditors who remit will also forgo, A particular instance of "wait for payment" is provided by s. 2(3) which was a necessary amendment because of the general principle that accepting a cheque (even a worthless cheque) as the means of payment, means that, until the creditor receives notice that the cheque has been dishonoured, he or she stops seeking payment: see R v Hammond (1982). s2(3) provides that a person induced to take a cheque or other security for money by way of conditional satisfaction of an existing liability is to be treated not as being paid but as being induced to wait for payment. As mens rea, the defendant must make the deception with intent to make permanent default in whole or in part on any existing liability to make a payment of his own, or with intent to let another do so.
Avoiding incurring a debt
For there to be an offence under s2(1)(c) there must be dishonesty and a deception which obtains any exemption from or abatement of liability to make a payment. Because both ss2(1)(a) and (b) require an "existing" liability to pay, they do not cover situations where the point of the deception is to prevent a liability from arising in the future. s2(1)(c) would apply when a person flags down a taxi and claims only to have £5. The driver agrees to carry the passenger to the destination for this amount. The contract is made for a reduced amount which is an "abatement" for these purposes. If the driver agreed to carry for no charge, this would be an "exemption". The CLRC gave examples where the defendant dishonestly obtained a rate rebate or a reduction in rent for the future. Another example would be waving a credit card at a ticket collector at a railway station to avoid having to pay to board the train. In roader than previous two offences as not limited to existing liabilities. In R v Firth (1990) CLR 326 the defendant failed to tell the NHS that patients using NHS facilities were in fact private patients thereby obtaining facilities without payment (an example of an omission or silence constituting the deception). In the Criminal law, an omission, or failure to act will constitute an Actus reus ( Latin for "guilty act" and give rise to liability In R v Sibartie (1983) CLR 470, the defendant was convicted of attempting s2(1)(c) when he deceived a ticket collector on the underground into believing that he had paid for the whole of his journey. In fact, he had only purchased tickets which covered the first few and last few stations in his journey. The court of first instance said that that was a dishonest attempt to obtain an exemption from the liability to pay the excess. On appeal, it was argued that this was an attempt to induce the creditor to forgo payment of part under s2(1)(b). The Court of Appeal held that although this illustrated the overlap between s. 2(1)(b) and s. 2(1)(c), it did not make liability under s. 2(1)(c) wrong.
Making off without payment
Section 3 provides:
- (1) Subject to subsection (3) below, a person who, knowing that payment on the spot for any goods supplied or service done is required or expected from him, dishonestly makes off without having paid as required or expected and with intent to avoid payment of the amount due shall be guilty of an offence.
- (2) For purposes of this section 'payment on the spot' includes payment at the time of collecting goods on which work has been done or in respect of which service has been provided.
- (3) Subsection (1) above shall not apply where the supply of the goods or the doing of the service is contrary to law, or where the service done is such that payment is not legally enforceable.
- (4) Any person may arrest without warrant anyone who is, or whom he, with reasonable cause, suspects to be, committing or attempting to commit an offence under this section. "
This section is intended to protect legitimate business concerns and applies where goods are supplied or a service is performed on the basis that payment will be made there and then. This includes a restaurant where the meal is supplied on the understanding that the bill will be paid before the diner leaves (CLRC, Thirteenth Report, para. A bill is a document demanding payment for an order previously supplied 19) and the passenger in a taxi who runs off without paying the fare at the end of the journey, and the motorist who fills up with petrol at a garage and drives off when the attendant is distracted (CLRC, Thirteenth Report, para. 20). For these purposes, it must be proved that the defendant knew that payment on the spot was required or expected, and made off dishonestly with intent to avoid payment of the amount due. This section is intended to avoid any problems from the application of civil law principles. Civil law, as opposed to Criminal law, refers to that branch of Law dealing with disputes between Individuals and/or Organizations, in which For example, the Sale of Goods Act determines when the ownership of goods passes. If the goods are being ascertained as part of the contract, title will pass when the goods are identified or measured. In a restaurant, this will probably occur when the food is cooked and plated. In a garage, it will occur when the fuel is measured as it passes through the pump into the car's tank. To be a theft, the goods must belong to another when the appropriation occurs. In Criminal law, theft (also known as stealing or filching) is the illegal taking of another person's Property without that person's freely-given Similarly, if ownership passed before an intention to avoid payment was formed, running off might be a breach of civil law but it was not a crime. This became too common an event and so the law had to be clarified to enable convictions to be obtained despite civil law niceties.
References
- Allen, Michael. Textbook on Criminal Law. Oxford University Press: Oxford. (2005) ISBN 0-19-927918-7.
- Criminal Law Revision Committee. 8th Report. Theft and Related Offences. Cmnd. 2977
- Griew, Edward. Theft Acts 1968 & 1978, Sweet & Maxwell: London. . ISBN 0-421-19960-1
- Ormerod, David. Smith and Hogan Criminal Law, LexisNexis: London. (2005) ISBN 0-406-97730-5
- Smith, J. C. Law of Theft, LexisNexis: London. (1997) ISBN 0-406-89545-7.
Dapyx Software network: MP3 Explorer | Ebook Manager | Zenithic