Divisional Courts
| Published date | 01 October 1978 |
| Date | 01 October 1978 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201837804200402 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Divisional
Courts
Comments on Cases
STOLEN LIGHT'?
Boggeln
v.
Williams
The Defendant in this case (1978 1 WLR 873) was convicted by
the Stoney Stratford Magistrates
of
dishonestly using electricity
contrary to section 13
of
the Theft Act 1968. The question was: had
he been dishonest?
The Electricity Board had disconnected the supply to his home
because he had failed to pay a bill. He subsequently telephoned the
Electricity Board and told them that he proposed to reconnect the
supply; which he did. He reconnected it in such a way that the con-
sumption
of
electricity continued to be recorded on the meter. He also
paid the outstanding bill. The Defendant then appealed to the Crown
Court, who allowed the appeal againstconviction, having found on the
evidence that the Defendant's state
of
mind at the relevant time was
not dishonest.
The prosecutor appealed to the Divisional Court. He argued that:
(a) the mere fact that the Defendant had taken electricity which
the Electricity Board was unwilling to supply was dishonest, and his
intention to pay for it was irrelevant, and
(b) alternatively, if intention to pay was relevant, it was only so
when the intention was based on a genuine belief on reasonable grounds
that the user would be able to pay, when payment was due, and the
Defendant did not reasonably so believe.
The question for the Divisional Court was therefore whether a
person could be convicted
of
the offence if he intends to pay for the
electricity, when payment was due, and the intention is based on a
genuine belief that he will be able to do so.
197
To continue reading
Request your trial