- Created by: hanalakie1
- Created on: 16-05-17 14:17
Cases for representation
S2(3) Fraud Act 2006 - States that a representation can be made as to fact, as to law, as to state of mind and can be made expressed or implied
S2(5) - Representation to machines, covering all devises and systems
Expressed representations: (written, spoken, posted)
Silverman - Necessary to show that there had been an untrue representation
Implied representations; (conduct, decpetion)
Barnard - Supports an implied and expressed representation
Lambie - Dishonestly misuses a credit card to pay for items. By tendering the card, they are falsely representing that he has the authority to use it
Pre Fraud Act 2006
DPP v Ray (Intention to pay for a meal) Gilmartin (Paying by cheque) Metropolitain Police Commander v Charles (Use of a cheque garantee card)
Cases for 'False'
Fraud Act 2006 - A representation is false if:
(a) Is untrue or misleading, and
(b) The person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading
Fraud Law: Government Response to Consultation (2004) - Stated that 'missleading' was 'less than wholly true and capable of interpretation to the detriment of the victim'
Cases for a gain or loss
Intention to make a gain or cause a loss of other propety
S5 Fraud Act 2006 - Defines property as 'any property whether real or personal including things in action and other intangible propety'
Gain can be temporary or permanent
Kapitene EWCA 2061 - Supports gain and loss of fraud
Dishonesty of fraud
Gosh Test - 1) Was D dishonest as per the ordinary standards of a reasonable and honest person? and 2) Did D realise the act would be regarded as dishonest by reasonable people?
Focuses on what the defendant knew, must know it was misleading at the time
Intention to gain/loss
Not necessary for the fraud to succeed only need the intention to make gain or cause loss
Laverty - (old law) The prosecution had to prove that the deception had caused the obtaining of property