REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
| Published date | 01 March 1975 |
| Date | 01 March 1975 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1975.tb01410.x |
REPORTS
OF
COMMITTEES
THE VICE
OF
SECTION
16:
A
REVIEW
OF
THE
CRIMINAL
LAW REVISION COMMITTEE
WORKING
PAPER,
SECTION
16
OF
THE
THEFT
ACT
1968
THE
Criminal Law Revision Committee was asked to consider
whether’any changes are desirable to section
16
of the Theft Act
1968
having regard to the working of the section. The Committee
considered that this reference raised important questions concerning
the proper extent
of
the criminal law. This turbid document, designed
to test public opinion, is the result. It
is
issued concurrently with the
Law Commission’s Working Paper
No.
56, Conspiracy
ta
Defraud,
which is intended to enable the reader
to
see the relationship between
the two sets of proposals.’
The vice or vices of section
16
(2)
(a)
concern(s) matters both of
interpretation and substantive coverage. The Committee accepts that
the decisions of the House of Lords in
R.
v.
Turner2
and
Ray
v.
Sempers3
have removed most, but not all, of the interpretative diffi-
culties.
Ray
v.
Sempers
deals with continuing representations and we
do not propose to discuss it here. The Working Paper concludes that
the effect of
R.
v.
Turner
can be stated thus4:
“
It is an offence for a person dishonestly by deception to achieve
any of these results in relation to an obligation to pay money:
(a) his creditor agrees that the amount owed shall be reduced;
(b)
his creditor agrees that the date of performance of the
(c) he avoids or gets out of fulfilling or performing his obliga-
What
is
left? The Committee says that the decision did not give a
final answer to the question whether a debt is deferred when there is
an appreciable postponement in the performance of the obligation
to
pay, but this occurs without the creditor’s agreement. This is not
regarded as
a
problem
of
much practical moment.5 Frauds involving
the obtaining of an allowance or rebate or which deceive a creditor
into believing that
a
debt has been repaid have not been dealt with
judicially. The Committee has little difficulty in suggesting
a
plausible
construction which would bring such transactions within the scope of
the section.*
A
problem to which the Committee does not advert
explicitly in its theoretical discussion but does in example
3
on
page
31,
is that raised in
R.
v.
Royle
I;
whether section
16
covers the case
obligation shall be postponed;
tion if only temporarily.”
1
Law
Commission,
W.P.
No.
56,
para. 3.
2
[I9741
A.C.
357.
3
C19741
A.C.
370.
4
C.L.R.C.
Report,
para.
21.
6
Ibid.,
pp. 17-18.
6
!bid.,
p.
18; in the former case
as
reducing
or
evading a charge for which he
makes himself liable
or
is
or
may become liable;
in
the latter case as evasion
of
the
debt. C19711 3
All
E.R. 1351.
186
To continue reading
Request your trial