Fraud

Deller (1952)

Facts: Defendant believed he was making a false representation about a car’s ownership, but it was actually true.
Principle: No actus reus—a person cannot be guilty of deception if their statement is actually true.

Hamilton [2008]

Facts: Defendant convicted of fraud under the Fraud Act 2006 for making false representations.
Principle: Fraud requires dishonesty—mere misrepresentation is insufficient without intent to deceive.

Cleps [2009]

Facts: Defendant convicted of fraud by false representation.
Principle: Fraud can be committed through silence if there is a duty to disclose information.

Barnard (1837)

Facts: Defendant dressed as an Oxford University student to obtain a discount.
Principle: Implied misrepresentation—deception can occur through conduct, not just words.

Waterfall (1970)

Facts: Defendant took a taxi ride knowing he could not pay.
Principle: Deception includes implied representations—taking a service while falsely implying ability to pay is fraud.

DPP v Ray [1974]

Facts: Defendant ordered a meal, later decided not to pay, and ran out.
Principle: Continuing representation—remaining seated implied intent to pay, making it deception.

Rai (2000)

Facts: Defendant applied for home improvements for his elderly mother but failed to inform authorities when she died.
Principle: Fraud by omission—failure to disclose a material change can constitute deception.

Idrees v DPP [2011]

Facts: Someone impersonated the defendant to take a driving theory test.
Principle: Fraud through impersonation—presenting false identity is deception.

Augunas [2013]

Facts: Defendant possessed counterfeit bank cards but claimed ignorance.
Principle: Knowledge of falsity is required—mere suspicion is insufficient for fraud.

Gilbert [2012]

Facts: Defendant falsely claimed company had financial backing to obtain a loan.
Principle: Fraud requires intent to gain or cause loss—misrepresentation must be linked to financial advantage.

Mashta [2010]

Facts: Defendant failed to disclose a change in circumstances affecting benefits.
Principle: Fraud by failure to disclose—legal duty to inform authorities can make silence fraudulent.