CRIMINAL

Theft making off without payment agreement to pay later defeating expectation of on the spot payment even though fraudulently obtainedR v Vincent: CA (Pill LJ, Penry-Davey J and Judge Mettyear): 16 February 2001The defendant stayed in two hotels but left without paying the bill.

At his trial, on charges of making off without payment, contrary to section 3 of the Theft Act 1978, it was accepted the there had been discussions between the hotel proprietors and the defendant as to when payment would be made.

The defendant claimed to be due some money.

There was an issue of fact as to whether agreements had been made which negated the usual expectation that the bill would be paid on departure.The trial judge directed the jury that if the hotel proprietors agreement to postpone payment had been brought about dishonestly by the defendant, then he could not be heard to say that there was a proper agreement to postpone the expectation and requirement for payment.

The defendant was convicted.

He appealed against conviction.Jon Swain (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant.

Giles Curtis-Raleigh (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service, Reading) for the Crown.Held, allowing the appeal, that an agreement which had been made some time before payment would normally be expected was capable of defeating the expectation that on the spot payment would be made; that section 3 did not require or permit an analysis of whether the agreement actually made had been obtained by deception; that if the expectation had been defeated by an agreement, it could not be said to exist, so that, while the customer would be liable to be charged with obtaining service by deception if he continued to stay at the hotel with that dishonest intention, he would not infringe section 3; and that, accordingly, by reason of the misdirection to the jury the verdicts were unsafe.

(WLR)