Obtaining services dishonestly
- Section 11 of the Fraud Act 2006- a maximum sentence of 5 years imprisonment.
- If he obtains services for himself or another by a dishonest act
- Section11(2)- someone is in breach of this- made avaliable on the basis that pyment has beenm is being or will be made for or in respect of them, obtains them without payment, knows payment not made in full
- Actus Reus; Obtaining and failing to pay
- Men rea; Dishonesty, Fraudulent intention
1 of 6
Obtaining and failing to pay
- Obtaining has a similar meaning to appropriation.
- Since the case R v Gomez there is little difference.
- This does not include obtaining a free service-R v Hala- not guilty was a free service.
- Since 1996 an amendment was been place into the 1978 Theft Act which made obtaining a mortgage advance with deception illegal. This was carried onto the new Fraud Act.
- Failing to pay- Troughton v Met- not guilty hadnt been asked to be taken to the police station therfore hadnt asked for the service.
2 of 6
Making off without payment
- Contained in section 3 of the Theft Act 1978.
- Person who knowing that payment on the spot for any goods supplied or services done is required or expected from him, dishonestly makes off without having paid as required and expected and with intent to avoid payment of the amount due shall be guilty of an offence.
- Mens Rea: Dishonesty, intention to avoid payment, knowing that payment was required
- Actus Reus: goods or services, making off from the spot and failing to pay
3 of 6
Goods or Services and Making off from the spot
- Goods or Services- These terms have a normal everyday meaning e.g. Property
- Making off from the spot- Leaving the point where payment is due e.g.going past the till and into the lobby.
- R v Brooks and Brooks- Behaviour suggested he was about to make off from the spot
- R v McDavitt- not guilty- still on premises
4 of 6
Intention to avoid payment and knowing that paymen
- Intention to avoid payment is a specific intent crime it cannot be committed recklessly.
- R v Allen- Needed to prove defendant wanted to avoid payment permanently- guilty.
- Knowing that payment on the spot was require or expected- if the defendant is not aware of his obligation to pay then he cannot be guilty of this offence.
5 of 6
Lawful excuse- part 1
- It is a special defence specific to the offence of criminal damage it is contained in the criminal Damage Act 1971 Section 5(2) and is split into two subsections;
- (a) where a person should be treated as having a lawful excuse if the defendant believed the owner would have given consent to the damage- Jaggard v Dickenson- believed the friend would have consented allowed defence.
- (b)is where the defendant honestly believes he has the right to commit criminal damage because he is protecting- DPP v Blake- wasn’t allowed to say God had given him consent but he could not consent and also he couldn’t be protecting the Gulf States because he was too far away.
- Chamberlain v Lindon- Protecting rights over own property
6 of 6