Fraud by false representation

S2 Fraud Act 2006: "D guilty if he dishonestly makes a false representation, and intends by makings the representation to make a gain for himself or cause a loss to another." 

NOTE: D does not have to succeed in making a gain or causing a loss.

Actus Reus:

S2(2) states: a false representation is a flase statement. [Trick, con or lie]

S2(3) states: a representation means any representation of law or fact (e.g. saying a car has done 20K miles when it has done 60K)

S2(4) states: the representation can be express/implied (V does not need to believe it or act upon it)

Barnard - D acted as though he was a member of Oxford Uni by wearing the cap and gown, D received goods on credit from a shopkeeper. Held: D guilty. 

1: Dishonesty (S2): Ghost test applies:

1) Was what D did dishonest by the standards of ordinary, reasonable and honest people? 

2) Did D know what he was doing was dishonest?

If Yes, D = dishonest.

2: D must know his representation is untrue or misleading or that it might be. 

• more demanding that belief/suspicion.

If D argues they didn't know the representation might be false, in circumstances where it was obvious that they would have, the test is satisfied. Although, they would still be liable under Ghosh test.

3: Intent to cause gain/make a loss

There is a casual link between the false representation and the intention of gaining/causing loss.

R v Rai (2000) - D's mum got a grant to install a bathroom, mum died but D did not tell the authority until after work was completed. Continuing representation that his mum was still alive.