Theft Act 1978
Encyclopedia
The Theft Act 1978 is an Act
of the Parliament of the United Kingdom
. It supplemented the earlier deception offences contained in sections 15 and 16 of the Theft Act 1968
by reforming some aspects of those offences and adding new provisions. See also the Fraud Act 2006
.
. It was repealed on 15 January 2007 by Schedule 3 to the Fraud Act 2006
. As amended by the Theft (Amendment) Act 1996, it read: A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains services from another shall be guilty of an offence. It is an obtaining of services where the other is induced to confer a benefit by doing some act, or causing or permitting some act to be done, on the understanding that the benefit has been or will be paid for. Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2) above, it is an obtaining of services where the other is induced to make a loan, or to cause or permit a loan to be made, on the understanding that any payment (whether by way of interest or otherwise) will be or has been made in respect of the loan.
There must be a deception which, according to section 5(1), has the same meaning as in section 15(4) of the Theft Act 1968, i.e. any deception (whether deliberate or reckless) by words or conduct as to fact or as to law, including a deception as to the present intentions of the person using the deception or any other person. This deception must be the cause of the obtaining (see the discussion on causation in Deception (criminal law) and Obtaining property by deception#By any deception).
The defendant must obtain a service as defined in section 1(2), i.e. the victim must confer a benefit on the defendant (or another). The 'services' must be non-gratuitous, i.e. the benefits must be provided by the victim of the deception in the expectation that they are to be paid for at commercial rates (see section 1(2)). It must be conferred by the doing, causing, or permitting of some act. A failure to act that confers a benefit is not sufficient. Thus, a person who employs a lawyer
or accountant
without ever intending to pay, may commit an offence under section 1. But a person who lies to a neighbour to secure the loan of a power drill does not commit an offence because the benefit is not obtained on the understanding that it has been or will be paid for. In R v Halai [1983] Crim LR 624, CA, the defendant made false statements in an application for a mortgage and thereby obtained a survey, the opening of an account and a mortgage advance. Note that the Theft (Amendment) Act 1996 introduced section 1(3) specifically to provide that a loan amounts to a service. This dispenses with that part of the decision in Halai (which had, in any event, been overruled by R v Graham prior to the Act) As to the opening of an account, contrast R v Shortland [1995] Crim LR 893 in which the Court of Appeal
held that, on the evidence presented, opening bank accounts under false names did not amount to the section 1 offence, but suggested that it might have done if evidence that it had to be paid for had been presented. The mens rea
for all offences is dishonesty
.
A person could commit this offence by obtaining services for another person.
As to obtaining of hire-purchase agreements, see R v Widdowson, 82 Cr App R 314, [1986] RTR 124, [1986] Crim LR 233, CA
The following cases are also relevant:
Liability for offences by corporations
Section 18 of the Theft Act 1968
applied in relation to this section as it applied in relation to section 15 of the Theft Act 1968.
Mode of trial and sentence
This offence was triable either way
. A person guilty of this offence was liable, on conviction
on indictment
to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding the prescribed sum
, or to both.
. It was repealed on 15 January 2007 by Schedule 3 to the Fraud Act 2006
. It read: Subject to subsection (2) below, where a person by any deception
Section 2(1) is divided into three parts, all of which require that both a deception caused the obtaining, which may be for oneself or for another, and that there is a legally-enforceable liability. All three also require proof that the creditor is deceived into releasing the defendant from the obligation to pay in some way. (Contrast the previous law represented by Director of Public Prosecutions v Ray which, for policy reasons, held that merely running out of a restaurant without positively deceiving someone was nevertheless an offence.
As to the meaning of the words "with intent to make permanent default in whole or in part of any existing liability to make a payment" in section 2(1)(b), see R v Attewell-Hughes [1991] 1 WLR 955, [1991] 4 All ER 810, 93 Cr App R 132, [1991] Crim LR 437, CA.
See also R v Andrews and Hedges [1981] Crim LR 106.
Liability for offences by corporations
Section 18 of the Theft Act 1968
applied in relation to this section as it applied in relation to section 15 of the Theft Act 1968.
(CLRC), Thirteenth Report, para. 13). In R v Jackson [1983] Crim LR 617, 147 JP 715, CA, Jackson tendered a stolen credit card to pay for petrol and other goods, and it was accepted by a trader, who then looked to the issuing credit card company for payment and not to the person tendering the card. This was held to dishonestly secure the remission of an existing liability and Jackson was convicted. For these purposes, the existing liability to make a payment may be the defendant's own liability or another's.
The provisions of section 2(2) clarify that section 2(1) does not apply where the liability has not been "accepted or established to pay compensation for a wrongful act or omission". This avoids the criminal law being a default liability for civil proceedings. Thus, if X lies about an accident to avoid a claim of negligence
, no offence is committed. The claimant can commence civil proceedings once the deception is discovered (CLRC, Thirteenth Report, para 16).
A particular instance of "wait for payment" is provided by section 2(3), which was a necessary amendment because of the general principle that accepting a cheque (even a worthless cheque) as the means of payment, means that, until the creditor receives notice that the cheque has been dishonoured, they stop seeking payment: see R v Hammond. Section 2(3) provides that a person induced to take a cheque or other security for money by way of conditional satisfaction of an existing liability is to be treated not as being paid but as being induced to wait for payment. As mens rea, the defendant must make the deception with intent to make permanent default in whole or in part on any existing liability to make a payment of his own, or with intent to let another do so.
. A person guilty of this offence was liable, on conviction
on indictment
to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding the prescribed sum
, or to both.
. It provides: Subject to subsection (3) below, 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 due shall be guilty of an offence. For purposes of this section 'payment on the spot' includes payment at the time of collecting goods on which work has been done, or in respect of which service has been provided. Subsection (1) above shall not apply where the supply of the goods or the doing of the service is contrary to law, or where the service done is such that payment is not legally enforceable.
The following subsection was repealed by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005
:
Any person may arrest without warrant anyone who is, or whom he, with reasonable cause, suspects to be, committing or attempting to commit an offence under this section."
This section is intended to protect legitimate business concerns and applies where goods are supplied or a service is performed on the basis that payment will be made there and then. This includes a restaurant where the meal is supplied on the understanding that the bill
will be paid before the diner leaves (CLRC, Thirteenth Report, para. 19) and the passenger in a taxi who runs off without paying the fare at the end of the journey, and the motorist who fills up with petrol at a garage and drives off when the attendant is distracted (CLRC, Thirteenth Report, para. 20). For these purposes, it must be proved that the defendant knew that payment on the spot was required or expected, and made off dishonestly with intent to avoid payment of the amount due. This section is intended to avoid any problems from the application of civil law
principles. For example, the Sale of Goods Act determines when the ownership of goods passes. If the goods are being ascertained as part of the contract, title will pass when the goods are identified or measured. In a restaurant, this will probably occur when the food is cooked and plated. In a garage, it will occur when the fuel is measured as it passes through the pump into the car's tank. To be a theft
, the goods must belong to another when the appropriation occurs. Similarly, if ownership passed before an intention to avoid payment was formed, running off might be a breach of civil law but it was not a crime. This became too common an event and so the law had to be clarified to enable convictions to be obtained despite civil law niceties.
Mode of trial and sentence
This offence is triable either way
. A person guilty of this offence is liable, on conviction
on indictment
to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding the prescribed sum
, or to both.
.
.
Section 5(3) was repealed by section 37(1) of, and Schedule 2 to, the Extradition Act 1989.
Act of Parliament
An Act of Parliament is a statute enacted as primary legislation by a national or sub-national parliament. In the Republic of Ireland the term Act of the Oireachtas is used, and in the United States the term Act of Congress is used.In Commonwealth countries, the term is used both in a narrow...
of the Parliament of the United Kingdom
Parliament of the United Kingdom
The Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the supreme legislative body in the United Kingdom, British Crown dependencies and British overseas territories, located in London...
. It supplemented the earlier deception offences contained in sections 15 and 16 of the Theft Act 1968
Theft Act 1968
The Theft Act 1968 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It creates a number of offences against property in England and Wales.On 15 January 2007 the Fraud Act 2006 came into force, redefining most of the offences of deception.-History:...
by reforming some aspects of those offences and adding new provisions. See also the Fraud Act 2006
Fraud Act 2006
The Fraud Act 2006 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It affects England and Wales and Northern Ireland. It was given Royal Assent on 8 November 2006, and came into effect on 15 January 2007.-Purpose:...
.
Section 1 - Obtaining services by deception
This section created the offence of obtaining services by deceptionObtaining services by deception
Obtaining services by deception is a statutory offence in the Republic of Ireland. It has been abolished in England and Wales and Northern Ireland.-Northern Ireland:...
. It was repealed on 15 January 2007 by Schedule 3 to the Fraud Act 2006
Fraud Act 2006
The Fraud Act 2006 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It affects England and Wales and Northern Ireland. It was given Royal Assent on 8 November 2006, and came into effect on 15 January 2007.-Purpose:...
. As amended by the Theft (Amendment) Act 1996, it read: A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains services from another shall be guilty of an offence. It is an obtaining of services where the other is induced to confer a benefit by doing some act, or causing or permitting some act to be done, on the understanding that the benefit has been or will be paid for. Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2) above, it is an obtaining of services where the other is induced to make a loan, or to cause or permit a loan to be made, on the understanding that any payment (whether by way of interest or otherwise) will be or has been made in respect of the loan.
There must be a deception which, according to section 5(1), has the same meaning as in section 15(4) of the Theft Act 1968, i.e. any deception (whether deliberate or reckless) by words or conduct as to fact or as to law, including a deception as to the present intentions of the person using the deception or any other person. This deception must be the cause of the obtaining (see the discussion on causation in Deception (criminal law) and Obtaining property by deception#By any deception).
The defendant must obtain a service as defined in section 1(2), i.e. the victim must confer a benefit on the defendant (or another). The 'services' must be non-gratuitous, i.e. the benefits must be provided by the victim of the deception in the expectation that they are to be paid for at commercial rates (see section 1(2)). It must be conferred by the doing, causing, or permitting of some act. A failure to act that confers a benefit is not sufficient. Thus, a person who employs a lawyer
Lawyer
A lawyer, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is "a person learned in the law; as an attorney, counsel or solicitor; a person who is practicing law." Law is the system of rules of conduct established by the sovereign government of a society to correct wrongs, maintain the stability of political...
or accountant
Accountant
An accountant is a practitioner of accountancy or accounting , which is the measurement, disclosure or provision of assurance about financial information that helps managers, investors, tax authorities and others make decisions about allocating resources.The Big Four auditors are the largest...
without ever intending to pay, may commit an offence under section 1. But a person who lies to a neighbour to secure the loan of a power drill does not commit an offence because the benefit is not obtained on the understanding that it has been or will be paid for. In R v Halai [1983] Crim LR 624, CA, the defendant made false statements in an application for a mortgage and thereby obtained a survey, the opening of an account and a mortgage advance. Note that the Theft (Amendment) Act 1996 introduced section 1(3) specifically to provide that a loan amounts to a service. This dispenses with that part of the decision in Halai (which had, in any event, been overruled by R v Graham prior to the Act) As to the opening of an account, contrast R v Shortland [1995] Crim LR 893 in which the Court of Appeal
Court of Appeal of England and Wales
The Court of Appeal of England and Wales is the second most senior court in the English legal system, with only the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom above it...
held that, on the evidence presented, opening bank accounts under false names did not amount to the section 1 offence, but suggested that it might have done if evidence that it had to be paid for had been presented. The mens rea
Mens rea
Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind". In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty...
for all offences is dishonesty
Dishonesty
Dishonesty is a word which, in common usage, may be defined as the act or to act without honesty. It is used to describe a lack of probity, cheating, lying or being deliberately deceptive or a lack in integrity, knavishness, perfidiosity, corruption or treacherousness...
.
A person could commit this offence by obtaining services for another person.
As to obtaining of hire-purchase agreements, see R v Widdowson, 82 Cr App R 314, [1986] RTR 124, [1986] Crim LR 233, CA
The following cases are also relevant:
- R v Teong Sun Chuah and Teong Tatt Chuah [1991] Crim LR 463, CA
- R v Cooke (David) [1997] Crim LR 436, [1997] 4 CL 187, 3 Archbold News 2, CA
- R v Cummings-John [1997] Crim LR 660
- R v Naviede [1997] Crim LR 662, CA
Liability for offences by corporations
Section 18 of the Theft Act 1968
Theft Act 1968
The Theft Act 1968 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It creates a number of offences against property in England and Wales.On 15 January 2007 the Fraud Act 2006 came into force, redefining most of the offences of deception.-History:...
applied in relation to this section as it applied in relation to section 15 of the Theft Act 1968.
Mode of trial and sentence
This offence was triable either way
Either Way
"Either Way" is a song by The Twang, which was released as their second single under the B-Unique Records on May 28, 2007, and it is also the second single to be taken from the band's debut album Love It When I Feel Like This...
. A person guilty of this offence was liable, on conviction
Conviction
In law, a conviction is the verdict that results when a court of law finds a defendant guilty of a crime.The opposite of a conviction is an acquittal . In Scotland and in the Netherlands, there can also be a verdict of "not proven", which counts as an acquittal...
on indictment
Indictment
An indictment , in the common-law legal system, is a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime. In jurisdictions that maintain the concept of felonies, the serious criminal offence is a felony; jurisdictions that lack the concept of felonies often use that of an indictable offence—an...
to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding the prescribed sum
Prescribed sum
The prescribed sum is the maximum fine that may be imposed on summary conviction of certain offences in the United Kingdom. In England and Wales and Northern Ireland, it is now equivalent to level 5 on the standard scale, which it predates...
, or to both.
Section 2 - Evasion of liability by deception
This section created the offence of evasion of liability by deceptionEvasion of liability by deception
Evasion of liability by deception was formerly a statutory offence in England and Wales and Northern Ireland.-England and Wales:This offence was created by the Theft Act 1978...
. It was repealed on 15 January 2007 by Schedule 3 to the Fraud Act 2006
Fraud Act 2006
The Fraud Act 2006 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It affects England and Wales and Northern Ireland. It was given Royal Assent on 8 November 2006, and came into effect on 15 January 2007.-Purpose:...
. It read: Subject to subsection (2) below, where a person by any deception
-
- (a) dishonestly secures the remission of the whole or part of any existing liability to make a payment, whether his own liability or another's; or
- (b) with intent to make permanent default in whole or in part on any existing liability to make a payment, or with intent to let another do so, dishonestly induces the creditor or any person claiming payment on behalf of the creditor to wait for payment (whether or not the due date for payment is deferred) or to forgo payment; or
- (c) dishonestly obtains any exemption from or abatement of liability to make a payment;
- he shall be guilty of an offence. For the purposes of this section 'liability' means legally enforceable liability; and subsection (1) shall not apply in relation to a liability that has not been accepted or established to pay compensation for a wrongful act or omission." For purposes of subsection (1)(b) a person induced to take in payment a cheque or other security for money by way of conditional satisfaction of a pre-existing liability is to be treated not as being paid but as being induced to wait for payment. For purposes of subsection (1)(c) "obtains" includes obtaining for another or enabling another to obtain.
Section 2(1) is divided into three parts, all of which require that both a deception caused the obtaining, which may be for oneself or for another, and that there is a legally-enforceable liability. All three also require proof that the creditor is deceived into releasing the defendant from the obligation to pay in some way. (Contrast the previous law represented by Director of Public Prosecutions v Ray which, for policy reasons, held that merely running out of a restaurant without positively deceiving someone was nevertheless an offence.
As to the meaning of the words "with intent to make permanent default in whole or in part of any existing liability to make a payment" in section 2(1)(b), see R v Attewell-Hughes [1991] 1 WLR 955, [1991] 4 All ER 810, 93 Cr App R 132, [1991] Crim LR 437, CA.
See also R v Andrews and Hedges [1981] Crim LR 106.
Liability for offences by corporations
Section 18 of the Theft Act 1968
Theft Act 1968
The Theft Act 1968 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It creates a number of offences against property in England and Wales.On 15 January 2007 the Fraud Act 2006 came into force, redefining most of the offences of deception.-History:...
applied in relation to this section as it applied in relation to section 15 of the Theft Act 1968.
Remission of a debt
Section 2(1)(a) covers the deception that dishonestly secures the remission of the whole or part of an existing liability to make a payment. Unlike the other two subsections, this requires that the victim knows a liability exists, and knows how much they are remitting. It does not cover situations where the defendant tricks the victim into believing that no money is owed (sections 2(1)(b) and (c) do cover this situation). If A borrows £50 from B and, when repayment is due, claims that a change of circumstances makes it impossible for him to repay some or all of the money; this deception persuades B to forgive the loan, or to accept £10 in full satisfaction (Criminal Law Revision CommitteeCriminal Law Revision Committee
The Criminal Law Revision Committee of England & Wales is a standing committee of learned legal experts that may be called upon by the Home Secretary to advise on legal issues and to report back recommendations for reform...
(CLRC), Thirteenth Report, para. 13). In R v Jackson [1983] Crim LR 617, 147 JP 715, CA, Jackson tendered a stolen credit card to pay for petrol and other goods, and it was accepted by a trader, who then looked to the issuing credit card company for payment and not to the person tendering the card. This was held to dishonestly secure the remission of an existing liability and Jackson was convicted. For these purposes, the existing liability to make a payment may be the defendant's own liability or another's.
The provisions of section 2(2) clarify that section 2(1) does not apply where the liability has not been "accepted or established to pay compensation for a wrongful act or omission". This avoids the criminal law being a default liability for civil proceedings. Thus, if X lies about an accident to avoid a claim of negligence
Negligence
Negligence is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm.According to Jay M...
, no offence is committed. The claimant can commence civil proceedings once the deception is discovered (CLRC, Thirteenth Report, para 16).
Delaying payment of a debt
Like section 2(1)(a), this requires an existing liability to make payment but, unlike (a), it does not require that the creditor knows they are "letting the defendant off". In R v Holt and Lee, the defendants ate a meal in a restaurant that cost £3.65. When presented with the bill, they claimed another waitress had already taken a £5 note from the table. Unfortunately, an off-duty policeman had overheard their planning. They were both convicted of an attempt by deception to induce the creditor to forego payment with intent to make permanent default. Their appeal against conviction was dismissed. The section is also concerned with dishonestly inducing a creditor to wait for payment. In many circumstances, this means that sections 2(1)(a) and (b) will overlap, but there are also situations in which they do not. Thus, creditors who remit will also forgo.A particular instance of "wait for payment" is provided by section 2(3), which was a necessary amendment because of the general principle that accepting a cheque (even a worthless cheque) as the means of payment, means that, until the creditor receives notice that the cheque has been dishonoured, they stop seeking payment: see R v Hammond. Section 2(3) provides that a person induced to take a cheque or other security for money by way of conditional satisfaction of an existing liability is to be treated not as being paid but as being induced to wait for payment. As mens rea, the defendant must make the deception with intent to make permanent default in whole or in part on any existing liability to make a payment of his own, or with intent to let another do so.
Avoiding incurring a debt
For there to be an offence under section 2(1)(c) there must be dishonesty and a deception that obtains some exemption from or abatement of liability to make a payment. Because both sections 2(1)(a) and (b) require an "existing" liability to pay, they do not cover situations where the point of the deception is to prevent a liability from arising in the future. Section 2(1)(c) would apply when a person flags down a taxi and claims only to have £5. The driver agrees to carry the passenger to the destination for this amount. The contract is made for a reduced amount, which is an "abatement" for these purposes. If the driver agreed to carry for no charge, this would be an "exemption". The CLRC gave examples where the defendant dishonestly obtained a rate rebate or a reduction in rent for the future. Another example would be waving a credit card at a ticket collector at a railway station to avoid having to pay to board the train. In roader than previous two offences as not limited to existing liabilities. In R v Firth, the defendant failed to tell the NHS that patients using NHS facilities were in fact private patients thereby obtaining facilities without payment (an example of an omission or silence constituting the deception). In R v Sibartie [1983] Crim LR 470, CA, the defendant was convicted of attempting section 2(1)(c) when he deceived a ticket collector on the underground into believing that he had paid for the whole of his journey. In fact, he had only purchased tickets for the first few and last few stations in his journey. The court of first instance said that that was a dishonest attempt to obtain an exemption from the liability to pay the excess. On appeal, it was argued that this was an attempt to induce the creditor to forgo payment of part under section 2(1)(b). The Court of Appeal held that although this illustrated the overlap between section 2(1)(b) and section 2(1)(c), it did not make liability under section 2(1)(c) wrong.Mode of trial and sentence
This offence was triable either wayEither Way
"Either Way" is a song by The Twang, which was released as their second single under the B-Unique Records on May 28, 2007, and it is also the second single to be taken from the band's debut album Love It When I Feel Like This...
. A person guilty of this offence was liable, on conviction
Conviction
In law, a conviction is the verdict that results when a court of law finds a defendant guilty of a crime.The opposite of a conviction is an acquittal . In Scotland and in the Netherlands, there can also be a verdict of "not proven", which counts as an acquittal...
on indictment
Indictment
An indictment , in the common-law legal system, is a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime. In jurisdictions that maintain the concept of felonies, the serious criminal offence is a felony; jurisdictions that lack the concept of felonies often use that of an indictable offence—an...
to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding the prescribed sum
Prescribed sum
The prescribed sum is the maximum fine that may be imposed on summary conviction of certain offences in the United Kingdom. In England and Wales and Northern Ireland, it is now equivalent to level 5 on the standard scale, which it predates...
, or to both.
Section 3 - Making off without payment
This section creates the offence of making off without paymentMaking off without payment
Making off without payment is a statutory offence in England and Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.-Northern Ireland:This offence is created by of the Theft Order 1978 Making off without payment is a statutory offence in England and Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of...
. It provides: Subject to subsection (3) below, 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 due shall be guilty of an offence. For purposes of this section 'payment on the spot' includes payment at the time of collecting goods on which work has been done, or in respect of which service has been provided. Subsection (1) above shall not apply where the supply of the goods or the doing of the service is contrary to law, or where the service done is such that payment is not legally enforceable.
The following subsection was repealed by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005
Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005
The Serious Organized Crime and Police Act 2005 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom aimed primarily at creating the Serious Organised Crime Agency, it also significantly extended and simplified the powers of arrest of a constable and introduced restrictions on protests in the...
:
Any person may arrest without warrant anyone who is, or whom he, with reasonable cause, suspects to be, committing or attempting to commit an offence under this section."
This section is intended to protect legitimate business concerns and applies where goods are supplied or a service is performed on the basis that payment will be made there and then. This includes a restaurant where the meal is supplied on the understanding that the bill
Bill (payment)
A bill or invoice is a document requesting payment for an order previously supplied. Presentation of a bill is common practice on the part of credit card companies, utilities, and other service providers...
will be paid before the diner leaves (CLRC, Thirteenth Report, para. 19) and the passenger in a taxi who runs off without paying the fare at the end of the journey, and the motorist who fills up with petrol at a garage and drives off when the attendant is distracted (CLRC, Thirteenth Report, para. 20). For these purposes, it must be proved that the defendant knew that payment on the spot was required or expected, and made off dishonestly with intent to avoid payment of the amount due. This section is intended to avoid any problems from the application of civil law
Civil law (common law)
Civil law, as opposed to criminal law, is the branch of law dealing with disputes between individuals or organizations, in which compensation may be awarded to the victim...
principles. For example, the Sale of Goods Act determines when the ownership of goods passes. If the goods are being ascertained as part of the contract, title will pass when the goods are identified or measured. In a restaurant, this will probably occur when the food is cooked and plated. In a garage, it will occur when the fuel is measured as it passes through the pump into the car's tank. To be a theft
Theft
In common usage, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent. The word is also used as an informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting and fraud...
, the goods must belong to another when the appropriation occurs. Similarly, if ownership passed before an intention to avoid payment was formed, running off might be a breach of civil law but it was not a crime. This became too common an event and so the law had to be clarified to enable convictions to be obtained despite civil law niceties.
Mode of trial and sentence
This offence is triable either way
Either Way
"Either Way" is a song by The Twang, which was released as their second single under the B-Unique Records on May 28, 2007, and it is also the second single to be taken from the band's debut album Love It When I Feel Like This...
. A person guilty of this offence is liable, on conviction
Conviction
In law, a conviction is the verdict that results when a court of law finds a defendant guilty of a crime.The opposite of a conviction is an acquittal . In Scotland and in the Netherlands, there can also be a verdict of "not proven", which counts as an acquittal...
on indictment
Indictment
An indictment , in the common-law legal system, is a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime. In jurisdictions that maintain the concept of felonies, the serious criminal offence is a felony; jurisdictions that lack the concept of felonies often use that of an indictable offence—an...
to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding the prescribed sum
Prescribed sum
The prescribed sum is the maximum fine that may be imposed on summary conviction of certain offences in the United Kingdom. In England and Wales and Northern Ireland, it is now equivalent to level 5 on the standard scale, which it predates...
, or to both.
Section 4 - Punishments
Section 4(2)(a) was repealed on 15 January 2007 by Schedule 3 to the Fraud Act 2006Fraud Act 2006
The Fraud Act 2006 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It affects England and Wales and Northern Ireland. It was given Royal Assent on 8 November 2006, and came into effect on 15 January 2007.-Purpose:...
.
Section 5 - Supplementary
Section 5(1) was repealed on 15 January 2007 by Schedule 3 to the Fraud Act 2006Fraud Act 2006
The Fraud Act 2006 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It affects England and Wales and Northern Ireland. It was given Royal Assent on 8 November 2006, and came into effect on 15 January 2007.-Purpose:...
.
Section 5(3) was repealed by section 37(1) of, and Schedule 2 to, the Extradition Act 1989.
Section 6 - Enactment of the same provisions for Northern Ireland
See the Theft (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1407 (N.I. 23)).Section 7 - Short title, commencement and extent
Section 7(2) provides that the Act came into force at the end of the period of three months that began on the date on which it was passed. The word "months" means calendar months. The day (that is to say, 20 July 1978) on which the Act was passed (that is to say, received royal assent) is included in the period of three months. This means that the Act came into force on 20 October 1978.External links
- The Theft Act 1978, as amended from the National Archives.
- The Theft Act 1978, as originally enacted from the National Archives.