Introduction
Offence created because it became obvious there were certain situations left uncovered by the Theft Act 1968 - D hadn’t committed theft, nor deceived anybody, but where most people would regard D’s conduct as ‘Criminal’
Greenburg
Created offence of Making off without payment.
D left petrol station without paying for petrol - did not amount to theft as the petrol now belonged to him, neither did it amount to a deception offence as when D drove in, he genuinely intended to pay for petrol and only changed his mind afterwards.
S3 Theft Act 1978
A person who:
“Knowing that payment on the spot for any goods supplied or service done is required or expected from him dishonestly makes off without having paid as required or expected, and with intent to avoid payment of the amount”
Shall be guilty of the offence.
Actus Reus
- Goods are supplied or a service is done
- Making off from the spot (where payment is required)
- Failure to pay as expected
Mens Rea
- Knowledge that payment is required on the spot
- Dishonesty
- intention to avoid payment
- Goods supplied or services done
- S3 specifies that goods must have been supplied or services done.
- These goods or services supplied must be legally enforceable.
Payment cannot be ‘expected or required’ if the goods/services done are against the law.
If the supply of goods is unlawful or the service isn’t legally enforceable, then no offence has been committed.
- Makes off…
Brooks and Brooks
‘Make off…’ means departure from the spot where payment is required.
D does not require running or sneaking out for him to have ‘made off’.
- From the spot where payment is required or expected”
What is regarded as “the spot” to which payment should be made will differ from one case to another.
McDavitt
D acquitted of MOWP as he had not departed from the spot, but simply waited in the toilet.
The spot varies from case to case.
Moberley v Aslop
There can be more than one point at which payment can be made.
- Without having paid as expected or required.
Throughton v MPC
Journey wasn’t completed, so driver breached his contract and so payment was NOT yet expected/ required.
Vincent
Payment not expected from D due to arrangements made with hotel that D would pay later.
MR
- Knowledge that payment is required on the spot
- Dishonesty
- No definition of dishonesty - Ghosh test used instead
- D’s conduct would be considered dishonesty by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people.
- D was aware that reasonable and honest people would consider his behaviour to be dishonest.
- Intention to avoid paying
Allen
D must intend to permanently avoid payment.
D had to be acquitted as an intention to merely deffer payment isn’t enough.
