Making off without payment
Introduction to Making Off Without Payment
Occurs when a person fails to pay at the time payment is expected.
Examples:
Leaving a taxi without paying the driver.
Failing to pay for a meal in a restaurant.
Legal Basis
Established to address gaps in the Theft Act 1968.
Defined in Section 3 of the Theft Act 1978:
(1) A person who, knowing that payment on the spot is required or expected, dishonestly makes off without having paid and intends to avoid payment is guilty of an offence.
(2) "Payment on the spot" includes payment at the time of collecting goods or for services rendered.
(3) Exemptions:
Does not apply where the goods supplied or service done is contrary to law.
Payment is not legally enforceable.
Actus Reus of Making Off Without Payment
Several elements must be proven:
Defendant makes off.
Goods have been supplied or a service has been done.
Payment is required on the spot.
The defendant has not paid as required.
1. The Defendant Makes Off
Definition: Leaving the place where payment was expected (e.g., a shop or restaurant).
Highlighted in R v McDavitt (1981):
The defendant was not guilty as he was still in the restaurant and had not truly "made off".
2. Goods Have Been Supplied or a Service Done
If the service or goods supplied do not meet the contract terms, there is no offence.
Illustrated by Troughton v Metropolitan Police (1987):
A taxi driver failed to complete the journey as agreed, breaching the contract; thus, no offence occurred.
3. Payment Required on the Spot
Payment becomes due only when goods or services are provided (R v Wilkinson, 2018).
It must be evidenced that payment on the spot was expected (R v Vincent, 2001):
In Vincent, the defendant's agreement to pay later negated the requirement for immediate payment, leading to the quashing of his conviction.
4. The Defendant Has Not Paid as Required
This is a factual matter; non-payment of the full amount means the offence is committed.
Mens Rea of Making Off Without Payment
Components of mens rea:
Dishonesty.
Knowledge that payment on the spot is required.
Intent to avoid payment.
1. Dishonesty
The standard for dishonesty aligns with that of theft.
2. Knowledge that Payment on the Spot is Required
If the defendant did not know that payment on the spot was necessary, they may not be guilty.
3. Intention to Avoid Payment
The Theft Act specifies intent to avoid payment of the amount due.
R v Allen (1985) clarified that intent must be permanent; mere deferral does not constitute an offence.
Case Examples
R v McDavitt (1981):
Argument with a restaurant manager; the defendant started to leave but was detained before truly leaving the premises.
Troughton v Metropolitan Police (1987):
Taxi driver failed to fulfill the ride agreement; no offence due to incomplete service.
R v Wilkinson (2018):
Taxi driver argument resulted in the passenger being returned to the initial pickup point; payment not required.
R v Vincent (2001):
Arrangements made with hotels to defer payment negated the immediate payment requirement.
R v Allen (1985):
Defendant left a hotel without paying but intended to pay after receiving expected funds; his conviction was quashed due to insufficient proof of intent to permanently avoid payment.
Sentencing for Making Off Without Payment
Classified as a triable-either-way offence.
Maximum penalty: Two years' imprisonment.
Evaluation of the Offence
Distinction between intention to permanently avoid payment and deferral is crucial.
Argument about whether the offence of making off without payment overlaps with fraud.
Clarification necessary about the duties and obligations between service providers (e.g., taxi drivers) and customers.
Important Takeaways
Actus Reus:
Defendant makes off.
Goods or services provided.
Payment required on the spot.
Defendant has not paid.
Mens Rea:
Dishonesty.
Knowledge of payment requirement.
Intention to avoid payment.
Penalty can lead to significant implications related to dishonesty and contractual obligations in service contexts.