Definition
Section 1 (in breach of s.2) of the Fraud Act 2006
D dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
‘Representation’
Section 2(3) - a representation is of fact or law, including the state of mind of the person making it or any other person.
Jeff and Bassett (1966) 51 Cr App R 28
• D said that in their opinion a roof requires repairs. This was a statement of fact because D knew that the works were unnecessary
Wenman [2013] (8th February 2013)
• D made false representation to elderly people that in his opinion, their properties needed repair = statement of fact
Barnard (1837) 7 C & P 784
By s.2(4) …..express:
• In order to gain credit in a shop, D expressly told the shop- keeper that he was an oxford university student, when he was not (oxford students were given credit)
d also impliedly represented that he was an oxford university student by his conduct of wearing an oxford student cap and gown
Haboub, [2007] EWCA Crim 3320
By s.2(4) …..express:
• D made an application for UK driving license with a fake French driving license
McDermott, [2008] EWCA Crim 1713
By s.2(4) …..express:
- D stole clothing from a department store
- d subsequently returned it to recover a refund of £79
- d said he had paid for it
Formhals [2013]EWCA Crim 2624
By s.2(4) …..express:
- D memorabilia dealer adversities books and magazines signed by famous figures, including Winston Churchill
- D knew the signatures were forgeries
Robinson [1884]10 VLR 131
implied…
• D wore a badge that suggested he could accept bets at a racecourse
DPP v Ray [1974] AC 370
implied…
- D entered a restaurants and ordered a meal
- This act impliedly represented that he intended to pay for the meal before leaving
- It also impliedly represented that he had the money to pay
- D made the positive implied representation when he ordered his meal that he intended to pay for it, this was true
- When d changed his mind, the representation became false
- But d came no further
Doukas [1978] 1 All ER 1061
implied…
a wine waiter employed at a hotel impliedly represented by pouring wine that the wine that he served was employers, not his own.
Morris; Anderton v Burnside [1984] AC 320
a customer in a supermarket who tenders goods to the cashiers impliedly represents that the price is that which he believes to be authorised by the store
Darwin and Darwin
- Paddled out to sea in his canoe in 2002 to fake his own death
- When he was proclaimed death his wife Anne netted almost £600,000 insurance money
- Darwin was sentenced to 7 years and his wife was sentenced to 6 years
Metropolitan Police Commissioner v Charles [1977] AC
when D writes a cheque D impliedly represents the transaction will be honored (met) by the bank and that D is the authorised to make the transaction.
Rai [2000] 1 Cr App R
- D applied to council for bathroom adaptations for his disabled mother
- At this point the positive express representation was true as his mother was disabled
- D mother died
- D omitted to tell the council
- Now the rep was false
- D initial positive rep continued until later point when it became false
- D was convicted of obtaining services by deception
Hands (1887) 52 JP 24
- D used brass disc instead of coin in cigarettes vending machine
- A machine could not be deceived
- D not guilty
Augunas [2013] EWCA Crim 2046
objective recklessness is not a sufficient were d ought to have known the representation was untrue or misleading
Collis - Smith [1971] Cr LR 716
(ii) The deception occurred after the gain had been obtained.
- D filled up with petrol at garage
- d Then lied by telling the cashier his employer would pay
- d did not obtain the property (petrol) by deception as D had already gained the petrol
- this would be s.3 TA 1978 – making off without payment offence
DPP v Ray [1968]
(ii) The deception occurred after the gain had been obtained.
- D ordered a meal and impliedly represented he’d pay for it
- D ate the meal
- Then decided not to pay
- D could not be charged with obtaining property by deception because the deception occurred after he had consumed the meal
- D can now be charged with fraud by false representation or with making off without payment contrary to s.3 TA 1978
Laverty [1970] 3 All ER 432
(iii) The obtaining was not because of the deception, but because of another reason
- D offered his car for sale
- His conduct impliedly represented that D was present owner
- It was also represented that the number plates were correct ( false as had been swapped)
- V brought the car from d
- V did so because of the true rep that d was the owner
- Not because of the false rep that the number plates were correct
- This would be an offence under s.2(1)
dishonesty test
The common law test of dishonesty applies in deciding whether D dishonesty made the false representation:
Ivey v Getting Casinos Uk Ltd (T/A Crockfords Club) [2017] UKSC 67;
1) Ascertain, subjectively, the actual state of D’s knowledge or belief as to the facts.
2) Was D’s conduct (for fraud the false representation) dishonest applying the objective standards of ordinary decent people.
