|
FRAUD ACT 2006 - “doing a runner”:
Making off without payment, or bilking, is now caught by the Fraud Act 2006
Sections 2 and 11 are relevant, however, charges are most easily laid under
section 11:
Section 11 “Obtaining services dishonestly” This reads as follows:
(1) A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he obtains services
for
himself or another—
(a) by a dishonest act, and
(b) in breach of subsection (2).
(2) A person obtains services in breach of this subsection if—
(a) they are made available on the basis that payment has been, is being or
will be made for or in respect of them,
(b) he obtains them without any payment having been made for or in
respect of them or without payment having been made in full, and
(c) when he obtains them, he knows—
(i) that they are being made available on the basis described in
paragraph (a), or
(ii) that they might be, but intends that payment will not be made, or will not
be made in full.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12
months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
5 years or to a fine (or to both).
(4) Subsection (3)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the
reference to 12months were a reference to 6 months.
CPS guidelines on the above:
The elements of the offence are that the Defendant:
.
obtains for himself or another
.
services
.
dishonestly
.
knowing the services are made available on the basis that payment
has been, is being or will be made for or in respect of them or that they
might be and
.
avoids or intends to avoid payment in full or in part.
This offence replaces obtaining services by deception in the Theft Act 1978
which is partly repealed by the Act.
In many cases, the Defendant will also have committed an offence under
Section 2 of the Act (Fraud by making a false representation - that payment
will be made or made in full). Prosecutors must decide which offence better
reflects the criminality involved. The maximum sentence for the Section 11
offence is five years imprisonment.
a) “Obtains for himself or another”:
Section 11 differs from the offences under the Theft Act in that it requires the
actual obtaining of a service (by a dishonest act e. g. non payment).
It is not possible to commit the offence by omission of the service alone. This
avoids the situation where unscrupulous service providers might feel able to
pressure anyone who had been given services they had not requested.
b) “Services”
Services will have the same definition as in Section 1 of the 1978 Theft Act
(Archbold 2007, para. 21-3411). The service must be provided on the basis
that it will be paid for.
1 This is the standard practitioners work on crime, available at any decent public
library.
c) “Dishonestly”:
The Ghosh test will apply, see below.
d) “Knowing” :
the services are made available on the basis that payment has been, is being
or will be made for or in respect of them or that they might be and
e) “Avoids or intends to avoid payment in full or in part,” see below:
Under the Fraud Act the Defendant must intend to avoid payment for the
service provided (in full or in part). He must have that intention at the time he
'avoids'.
The “Gosh” test of dishonesty:
R v Ghosh, (1982) CA
D a surgeon was filling in as a consultant at a hospital. He pretended that he
had himself carried out surgical operations and that money was due to him.
The operations had, in fact, been carried out under the NHS by someone
else.
Held: In determining whether D was acting dishonestly, the jury had first to
decide whether what was done was dishonest. If it was, the jury must then
consider whether D himself must have realised that what he was doing was
dishonest by the standards of the ordinary reasonable person.
Payment due?:
R v Aziz [1993] Crim LR 708
[Making off without payment - 'the spot' where payment should be made]
D requested a taxi driver to take him to a club 13 miles away. On arrival D
refused to pay the £15 fare claiming that the journey was only four miles. The
taxi driver at first started to take them back to their hotel, then took them to the
police station where he ran out of the taxi.
Held: The Theft Act 1978 did not require payment be made on any particular
spot.
'On the spot' related to the knowledge that the customer had as to when
payment should be made.
In the case of a taxi, payment may be made whilst sitting in the car or
standing at the window but the fares were requested when the customer was
still in the car. The obligation to pay continued even when being taken back to
the starting point / police station.
'On the spot' was not necessarily the final destination of the journey:
Guilty
NOTE The Fraud Act does not repeal s.3 of the Theft Act; it is still available
Actions a driver could take:
Phone the police.
You can take the offender to the police station, but you must be aware that
you are making a citizen's arrest.
You need to be clear on the offence you are arresting for and tell the offender
you are taking this action.
You have the right to arrest as the offence is an “arrestable offence”.
You can use reasonable force. Broadly that means you can only use force if
the offender is resisting, and can only use sufficient force to apprehend. This
is complicated and subjective.
If force has to be used you are advised not to do so. You run the risk of injury
to yourself and damage to your vehicle. If you injure the passenger you could
be charged, you have to account for the force used. As the offence is not a
very “serious” one , it is not worth using 'reasonable force' better to let the
offender go and report the matter.
_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!
|
Login
Register
FAQ
