House of Lords
| Published date | 01 November 1985 |
| Date | 01 November 1985 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201838504900403 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
HOUSE
OF
LORDS
MAKING
OFF
WITHOUT
PAYMENT-THE
MENTAL
ELEMENT
R. v. Allen
In R. v. Allen (1985) 3
W.L.R.
107,
the
House
of
Lords
has
upheld
the
decision of
the
Court
of
Appeal
«(1985) 1 All
E.R.
148; 49
J.c.L. 223)
that
proof
on
the
accused's
part
of an
intention
to
make
permanent
default
on
payment
is
required
in
order
to establish
liability for
the
offence
created
by section 3( 1) of
the
Theft
Act
1978
which provides, inter alia, that: "
...
a
person
who,
knowing
that
payment
on
the
spot
for any goods supplied
or
service
done
is
required
or
expected
from
him,
dishonestly
makes
off
without
having
paid
as
required
or
expected
and
with
intent
to avoid
payment
of
the
amount
due
shall be guilty of an
offence".
The
defendant,
after
residing at an hotel for several
weeks
and
running
up a bill of nearly £1,300, left without paying.
He
was
charged,
inter alia, with
making
off
without
payment
contrary
to
section 3( 1) of
the
1978
Act
(above).
He
was convicted in
the
Crown
Court
where
his defence
that
he
had
acted
honestly
and
had
genuinely
expected
to pay
the
bill
and
had
intended
at most merely
to delay
or
defer
payment
until he received
the
proceeds
from
certain
business
ventures
proved
unsuccessful.
The
trial
judge
had
directed
the
jury
that
a
person
made
off
"with
intent
to avoid
payment"
for
the
purposes
of section 3(1) if he
intended
to avoid
payment
at
the
time
payment
was
due,
which in this case was when
the
defendant
checked
out
of
the
hotel,
and
that
the
Crown
did
not
have
to
show
that
the
defendant
intended
permanently
to avoid
payment
of
the
bill. His
appeal
against conviction to
the
Court
of
Appeal
was successful
and
his conviction was
quashed,
the
court
having ruled
that
the
trial
judge
had
erred
in his direction to the
jury
on
the
nature
of
the
mental
element
necessary for
the
offence
under
section 3(1) which,
the
Court
of
Appeal
held,
required
proof
of an
intention
permanently
to
evade
payment.
By leave of
the
House
of
Lords,
the
Crown
appealed
against
the
decision of
the
Court
of
Appeal.
342
To continue reading
Request your trial