Question 4

From the extract of the case study given, there are a few criminal issues with regards to Paul and hence
areas of making off without payment, fraud and making false representation, theft and handling stolen
goods would all be analysed and evaluated in detail.

Firstly, Paul had gone for a haircut to an expensive barber and then he deliberately waits until the barber
goes to wash another customer’s hair and then Paul makes off from the place since he left the place
quietly without paying and so this can be considered as a criminal offence under the section 3 of the
Theft Act 1978 since Paul has obtained the hair cut service and had made off the place without paying
when he knows that the payment is required or expected from him after the haircut. Paul too had left
the place and his actus reus suffice for making off without payment as under the section 3 (2) of the Theft
Act 1978 as he knew payment on spot is required when service is being given to him and he does not do
so as opposed to the case of Troughton v Metropolitan Police. In this case, intoxicated, the defendant
ordered a cab to Highbury but could not identify his residence. The vehicle stopped to ask the defendant
for directions. It escalated into a heated confrontation when the defendant accused the driver of
overcharging him. When the defendant refused to give him an address, the driver took him to a police
station where he fled.

He was convicted of evading payment and appealed, claiming no payment was owed. To be convicted of
theft or making off without payment under section 3(1) of the Theft Act 1968, there must be a payment
owed for services or products given to the defendant. The taxi driver agreed to transport the defendant
to Highbury. As the driver had failed to transport the defendant to Highbury, he owed him no money and
he was under no duty to pay the taxi driver the charge. Making off requires a legally enforceable payment
that may be requested on spot but was avoided by the defendant. The defendant's theft conviction was
overturned because the taxi driver didn't transport him home, there was no legal requirement to pay the
fee. The haircut for Paul was completed, hence Paul owes money to the barber and so what Paul has
done is an act of making off without payment.

In addition to that, Paul had the knowledge that payment would be required since he is an adult and that
too he has entered into the barber shop knowing that it is an expensive one and so he has the intention
to avoid payment as in R v Allen. Paul’s act reflects his dishonesty since in Ivey v Genting Casinos
dishonesty can be implied by act of the defendant and Lord Hughes stated that "concerning dishonesty,
the fact-finding judge must first determine the individual's actual knowledge or belief of the facts. It is
not a condition that his view be logical; the point is whether it is honestly embraced. It is therefore up to
the fact-finder to decide whether his behaviour was honest or dishonest, based on the (objective) norms
of ordinary decent people. There is no necessity that the defendant understands what he has done is
dishonest." Based on this, Paul was dishonest since he used the opportunity whereby the barber was
washing another customer’s hair to flee from the barber shop without paying.

Next, Paul too made section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 false representation to his client and advised his
client to sign up for a more expensive insurance policy for getting a higher commission despite knowing
that the client did not need this policy in particular and hence this is fraud by false representation as
under the. Paul has misrepresented the information given to client and in fact was making false
statements regarding the policy to the client in order to persuade the client to take a higher premium
insurance to make a gain for himself and so he is dishonest and so his act and guilty mind can coincide
and reflect his ill - intention, satisfying the section 5 of the Fraud Act 2006. A case to look into on what
constitutes false statement is R v Gilbert because in this case, in order to obtain a bank account,
defendant made a fake/false statement. On appeal, defendant's conviction for fraud by false
representation was overturned because the bank account was not money or other property.' While
defendant may have utilised the account to do business in the future and profited financially, the
relationship between that profit and false representation was too tenuous (uncertain/vague) to warrant a
conviction. However, on the facts of the case study, Paul can be guilty for false representation due to
making the client paying extra for an unnecessary policy that the client does not need, assuming if the
client has signed up and paid for insurance policy that is not needed.

Later, Paul participated in pickpocketing since he took Bill’s wallet from Bill’s back pocket jeans and this is
a clear-cut theft situation because Paul ran off when Bill chased Paul after realising that Paul has taken
away his wallet and so Paul was dishonest and he intends to permanently deprive Bill from his wallet and
anything in the wallet such as money and any other valuable contents inside the wallet. When Paul ran
off it also proves that Paul does not want to return the wallet to Bill so the mens rea for theft is satisfied
and the penalty under section 7 of the Theft Act 1968 could be imposed on him but his theft is a minor
one and so the maximum penalty of seven years may not be imposed. On the other hand, considering the
actus reus, Paul has taken or appropriated by stealing the wallet which is a property belonging to Bill and
hence Paul would be guilty of theft.

Finally, when Paul arrived home, he saw a parcel from his friend, Alex and in the package, there is a vinyl
record which was a collector’s item as a gift and so Paul was happy about this, however, the vinyl record
is a stolen item from a store. Under the section 22 of the Theft Act 1968, handling stolen goods occurs if,
knowing or believing them to be stolen goods, he dishonestly receives them, or dishonestly undertakes
or assists in their retention, removal, disposal, or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if
he arranges to do so (other than in the course of the stealing). A person found guilty of handling stolen
goods faces a maximum sentence of fourteen years in prison if convicted on an indictment.

Handling stolen items is a crime that may be categorised as a triable – either way offence. The crime is
committed when the defendant is behaving in a manner different than that of a thief because theft may
be a continuous process, proving whether the defendant in possession of stolen items is a thief or a
handler of stolen goods can be challenging. In such circumstances, the prosecution will charge with
handling of goods instead rather than for theft. The goods must have been stolen, but there is no need
for evidence of a conviction for the predicate offence, nor is it essential to identify the individual who
stole the goods. Evidence will have to be summoned to show that aspect of the crime if the individual
who stole the items is named in the indictment which is Alex. Therefore, Paul may be guilty for handling
stolen goods, however since he did not know that the vinyl record was a stolen one and did not suspect
it, he may not be guilty as illustrated in Atwal v Messy, unless Alex is a thief as Paul and they have done
previous criminal acts together in relation to theft and other property offences.

In conclusion, the possible offences that Paul can be guilty of are for making of without payment, false
representation, theft and handling stolen goods as discussed above.

Criminal May 2022

**Sexual offences - consent + Offences against persons

**Defences – Insanity, Automatism, Necessity, Intoxication, Self-defence, Duress

*Homicide + Participation

*Loss of self-control, diminished responsibility

*Mens rea – intention, recklessness

*Omission / Criminal damage – fire, damaging someone’s property

**Property offences and fraud