Topic 16
Topic
16
Making off without payment
Making off
without
payment
Topic 16
Making off without payment
Introduction
‘Making off without payment’ is defined in s.3 of the
Theft Act 1978:
‘A person who, knowing that payment on the spot for any
goods supplied or services done is required or expected
from him, dishonestly makes off without having paid as
required or expected and with intent to avoid payment.’
This offence is different from theft, as the defendant forms
the mens rea after he or she has obtained ownership of
the property.
Topic 16
Making off without payment
Actus reus (1)
There are three parts to the actus reus for this offence:
• makes off
• without payment
• goods supplied or services done
Topic 16
Making off without payment
Actus reus (2)
Makes off
The actual spot that the defendant ‘makes off’ from is
usually the place or point where payment is required.
In R v McDavitt (1981), the defendant refused to pay for
his meal in a restaurant. He made his way to the door but
decided not to leave as the police had been called. The
Crown Court decided that he had not made off, as he had
not left the restaurant. It did not matter that he intended
to leave without paying.
Topic 16
Making off without payment
Actus reus (3)
Without payment
The payment must be required or expected at the time that the
defendant makes off. If the defendant makes an agreement that he or
she will pay for the goods or services at a later date, the offence has
not been committed.
In R v Vincent (2001), the defendant stayed at two hotels for 5 weeks
and ran up a bill totalling £1,300. He left the hotels after arranging with
the managers to pay at a later date. The Court of Appeal quashed his
conviction. He had not committed the actus reus, as payment was not
expected when he left the hotels. It did not matter that he never
intended to pay and had dishonestly made arrangements to pay later.
Topic 16
Making off without payment
Actus reus (4)
Goods supplied or services done
The most commonly used examples of ‘goods supplied or
services done’ are when a person fills up his or her car with
petrol and drives off without paying, or when someone has a
meal in a restaurant and leaves without paying the bill.
The goods and services must be ones where payment is
legally enforceable. Section 3(3) states that there is no
offence when the goods or service are against the law.
Topic 16
Making off without payment
Mens rea (1)
There are three parts to the mens rea for this offence:
• dishonesty
• knowledge that payment is required
• intent to avoid payment
Topic 16
Making off without payment
Mens rea (2)
Dishonesty
The test for dishonesty for this offence is the same as that used
in the offence of theft. The Court of Appeal established a twostage test for dishonesty in R v Ghosh (1982). It combines both
an objective and a subjective element. The jury has to answer
the following questions:
• Has the defendant been dishonest by the ordinary standards of
reasonable and honest people?
• If the answer is yes to the first question, the court should ask
whether the defendant realised that he or she was dishonest by
those standards. If the answer is yes to the second question,
there is dishonesty.
Topic 16
Making off without payment
Mens rea (3)
Knowledge that payment is required
Usually, payment for taxi rides is expected at the end of a
journey, but in Troughton v Metropolitan Police (1987) the
taxi never completed the journey. The defendant asked the
taxi driver to take him to Highbury but did not give a specific
address. The taxi driver drove to Highbury but still could not
ascertain the address, as the defendant was drunk. The taxi
driver then drove to the police station where the defendant
got out of the taxi and ran away. His conviction for making off
was quashed by the Queen’s Bench Divisional Court.
Topic 16
Making off without payment
Mens rea (4)
Knowledge that payment is required
The facts of R v Aziz (1993) are similar to Troughton,
except that the defendant had reached his destination but
refused to pay. The taxi driver drove towards the police
station when the defendant forced him to stop the taxi and
ran away. His conviction was upheld as he had completed
his journey and payment for the service was expected.
Topic 16
Making off without payment
Mens rea (5)
Intent to avoid payment
The defendant must intend to avoid payment permanently. If the
defendant claims that he or she was intending to pay at a later date, it
is up to the jury to decide if it believes the defendant or not.
In R v Allen (1985), the defendant left his belongings at a hotel and
departed without paying the bill. He telephoned the hotel and said that
he would return a few days later and would leave his passport with the
hotel until he had enough money to pay. He was arrested when he
returned to the hotel and convicted of making off. The House of Lords
quashed his conviction. The jury at his trial should have been asked if it
believed that he did intend to pay in the future.