Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Making Off without Payment - Coggle Diagram
Making Off without Payment
Definition
s3(1), Theft Act 1968
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 of him, dishonestly
makes off
without having paid as
required or expected
and with the
intent to avoid payment
of the amount due shall be guilty of an offence.
Actus Reus
Goods supplied or service done. (Self explanatory)
Making off from the spot
R v Brooks and Brooks
'Make off' simply means to depart.
R v McDavitt
D only
tried
to leave the restaurant without paying. So, he had only 'attempted to make off without payment' since he was stopped when he reached the door.
Failure to pay as required or expected
Troughton v Metropolitan Police
His conviction was
quashed
because payment would only be required when he was sent home not earlier than that. The offence is only committed when payment is due, not earlier.
R v Vincent
Once there was no longer an expectation of payment 'on the spot', the D's actions no longer constituted this offence, instead constituted the offence of obtaining services dishonestly.
R v Wilkinson
Mens Rea
Knowledge that payment on the spot is required/expected
Must have evidence that the payment was required or expected. This can be a specific statement or a common practice like paying a taxi fare upon arrival at the destination.
Dishonesty
Same definition as theft.
Intention to permanently avoid payment
R v Allen
The trial judge said that the fact that D intended to return after a successful business venture was irrelevant. On appeal, HoL said it was relevant as it should've been up to the jury to decide if D had intention to permanently avoid payment.
Criticism
Making off does not cover for situations where D can be easily traced (e.g is well known to V) - Hammond
This ensures that the offence doesn't overreach to cover any common dishonest debtors like those who leave dud cheques behind as payment
Ambiguity and Complexity
Does not condone activities beyond the law - s3(3)
The offence is not committed if the supply of the good or service is contrary to law
Drug dealers cannot complain if they don't receive payment, prostitutes cannot prosecute for those who don't pay
protects and safeguards the interest of businesses and service providers by providing an avenue to hold those that deny them the fruits of their labor accountable
Dishonesty based - opens to jury problems - inconsistencies
Covers modern transactions like self-service/self-payment that has no direct human oversight. Prevents people from exploiting the fact that they aren't being supervised into making a payment
Is it neccesary?
Yes - certain service-related crimes aren't covered by other theft offences as they mostly cover leaving with tangible property and its appropriation and not acts of avoiding payment, as you can't exactly appropriate meals or a taxi ride. (R v Brooks and Brooks)
No - overlaps with fraud (R v Vincent) and theft laws and should just be classified within one of their more broader offences. Also overlaps with civil law as it could be a contractual dispute better resolved with civil remedies. (and not disproportionate punishments like imprisonment)