Were we right to walk out?

Silver-Surfer_2

neilmcl wrote: »

Not reasonable to wait no, but entirely unreasonable to get up and leave without paying when it could have quite easily be resolved had the OP actually approached a member of staff and demand they take payment forthwith rather than to sit around waiting for something to happen.

Not sure what you're say there. Are you saying it's unreasonable for them to have to wait 25 minutes to pay? If so then you are also saying they are they have not acted dishonestly by leaving without paying.

naedanger

unholyangel wrote: »

I didn't directly answer it because its a silly question. In court it always comes down to what you can prove. Which is why I went through the circumstances with you and pointed out when the prosecution has evidence (even circumstantial) and the defence has only their say so, they are likely to be convicted.

You previously said I was wrong when I said "if the person intended to pay later then it would not be against the law". Why is it now silly to ask you to confirm whether you are still of that view and how you reconcile that view with clear statements (e.g. in statute and from Lord Hailsham) that intent to avoid payment is necessary to be guilty.

Of course in court it comes down to what can be proved. But the question remains what has to be proved. Just that the person left without paying as you said previously? Or does dishonest intent also need to be proved? No doubt you consider such points silly.

I believe the conviction rate in cases covered by the theft act is 80%. Yet you seem to think its more probable they wouldn't be convicted.

I have not said anywhere that I believe most cases of theft would not be convicted. I don't. I believe criminal cases will only get to court where there is a case to answer, which will include evidence of dishonest intent (where this is necessary to be found guilty).

As for the part in bold, you're giving away how little you know of the legal system. The defendant - of course - doesn't need to put forth a defence if they do not wish to.

If the defendant had to prove his innocence as you seem to imply then there would be no "of course" about it. If the defendant failed to make a case they would have failed to prove their innocence and they would be found guilty. The "of course" bit shows, whether you understand or not, that the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

But not to do so is extremely risky and increases the chance of conviction in most cases. In order to establish facts in case, you need to provide supporting evidence of them.

Of course anyone sensible is going to make the best defence they can to reduce the chances of losing to a minimum. If I was falsely accused of course I would try to do as much as possible to prove my innocence. It does not change the fact that the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

In certain criminal cases, the defendant can also have an evidential burden.

I know that. It is interesting you appear to know of evidential burden but don't seem to appreciate its significance.

I have no idea how you think me discussing intent is trying to divert the attention away from the discussion over intent.

The point you are endless diverting the discussion from is whether or not someone is guilty of "making off" if they left without paying but with the intention to do so later.

I would seriously advise looking at other sources for information of the law rather than just taking the limited case summaries available on the sixthformlaw website as gospel without context.

Unsurprisingly none of the caselaw you quoted supported your assertion that leaving without payment was sufficient for someone to have "made off" regardless of their intent. Indeed some were very explicit in saying the opposite. I cannot see what further context would change the judge's stated views 180 degrees.

unholyangel

naedanger wrote: »

You previously said I was wrong when I said "if the person intended to pay later then it would not be against the law". Why is it now silly to ask you to confirm whether you are still of that view and how you reconcile that view with clear statements (e.g. in statute and from Lord Hailsham) that intent to avoid payment is necessary to be guilty.

Of course in court it comes down to what can be proved. But the question remains what has to be proved. Just that the person left without paying as you said previously? Or does dishonest intent also need to be proved? No doubt you consider such points silly.



I have not said anywhere that I believe most cases of theft would not be convicted. I don't. I believe criminal cases will only get to court where there is a case to answer, which will include evidence of dishonest intent (where this is necessary to be found guilty).



If the defendant had to prove his innocence as you seem to imply then there would be no "of course" about it. If the defendant failed to make a case they would have failed to prove their innocence and they would be found guilty. The "of course" bit shows, whether you understand or not, that the burden of proof is on the prosecution.



Of course anyone sensible is going to make the best defence they can to reduce the chances of losing to a minimum. If I was falsely accused of course I would try to do as much as possible to prove my innocence. It does not change the fact that the burden of proof is on the prosecution.


I know that. It is interesting you appear to know of evidential burden but don't seem to appreciate its significance.


The point you are endless diverting the discussion from is whether or not someone is guilty of "making off" if they left without paying but with the intention to do so later.


Unsurprisingly none of the caselaw you quoted supported your assertion that leaving without payment was sufficient for someone to have "made off" regardless of their intent. Indeed some were very explicit in saying the opposite. I cannot see what further context would change the judge's stated views 180 degrees.

Where you're talking about all evidence to the contrary pointing to them intending not to pay and the defendant then saying they intended to pay later then I stick by my original statement - it would be an offence unless they had informed the supplier at the time - as that would remove the dishonest element.

The CPS's own prosecution guidance states cases for making off without payment are straightforward. They are not as complex as you are suggesting.

Leaving without paying or communicating with a staff member is enough to prove dishonest intent. What exactly do you think is meant by dishonest or intent because from the way you keep obsessing over it, I suspect you take it to mean that they need to prove there has been a deception - and that is most definitely not the case. There have been many many instances of people being convicted purely because they left without paying - not just isolated to one offence either although you'll find the most examples in shoplifting.

Regarding the burden of proof - I have already explained this. If you can't understand the explanation given then I cannot help you any further with that.

As for the case law saying the opposite to what I have implied it says, care to quote some examples like I did previously when you were taking case law out of context?

Also - as I said before, unless dozens of other tables also walked out without paying, the prosecution are not going to have a difficult job of showing that leaving without paying is dishonest. If it was the actions of a reasonable and honest person then more people would do it.

Even you yourself said you would at least leave your details. The other replies on this thread have said they would approach a staff member and say to them. Has anyone actually said they would leave without saying a word and without paying? And yet you think they'd struggle to prove dishonesty *shakes head*

wealdroam

shezzone wrote: »

Were we right to walk out?

No you weren't right.

Why are you even asking a forum to justify your actions?
You already know the answer.

photome

wealdroam wrote: »

No you weren't right.

Why are you even asking a forum to justify your actions?
You already know the answer.

Guessing this may not stop another 6 pages of crap being posted though

Mkl79

Look,however anyone tries to dress this up what they did was wrong! You buy something,you pay for it,simple,regardless of how bad you think the service has been,or,if you really must complain then do so but dont just leave then come on here hoping that everyone will say "good on you,well done,you did the right thing! Fancy having to wait HALF AN HOUR for some food!!!"

Marktheshark

gunsandbanjos wrote: »

I'm sure the member(s) of staff who had to foot your bill at the end of the night are delighted you walked out.

Them in might "wake them up a bit" in future.
Certainly sounds like something needs to.

naedanger

unholyangel wrote: »

Where you're talking about all evidence to the contrary pointing to them intending not to pay and the defendant then saying they intended to pay later then I stick by my original statement - it would be an offence unless they had informed the supplier at the time - as that would remove the dishonest element.

My statement that you wrongly disagreed with made no reference to any evidence or its quality. I simply said if a person did not intend to avoid payment then they were not guilty of making off. The word "if" is signicant, which is why I have recently been emphasising it. (To spell it out, I did not say either the op was or was not guilty.)

The CPS's own prosecution guidance states cases for making off without payment are straightforward. They are not as complex as you are suggesting.

I have nowhere said cases are complex other than they depend on intent and that the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

Leaving without paying or communicating with a staff member is enough to prove dishonest intent.

If someone did not have dishonest intent then they are not guilty. (Could such a person be found guilty? Yes, because wrongful convictions can and do happen.)

What exactly do you think is meant by dishonest or intent because from the way you keep obsessing over it, I suspect you take it to mean that they need to prove there has been a deception - and that is most definitely not the case.

I am not obsessing over it. I am merely saying that it is needed for someone to be guilty of "making off". I don't know why you cannot separate what needs to be proved from whether or not there is sufficient evidence for it to be proved.

Regarding the burden of proof - I have already explained this. If you can't understand the explanation given then I cannot help you any further with that.

I understood what you said. Of course anyone will want their defence to be as strong as possible and will make whatever efforts they can to prove their innocence. But this does not mean the legal standard is they have to prove their innocence. They don't (in the case of "making off"). The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

As for the case law saying the opposite to what I have implied it says, care to quote some examples like I did previously when you were taking case law out of context?

I will do, one more time. This whole discussion is over whether or not a person is guilty of making off if when they left without paying they intended to pay. You said that simply leaving without paying was sufficient.

What Lord Hailsham said was - " To secure a conviction under section 3 the following must be proved:
(1) that the defendant in fact made off without making payment on the spot;
(2) the following mental elements — (a) knowledge that payment on the spot was required or expected of him; and (b) dishonesty; and (c) intent to avoid payment [sc. 'Of the amount due']."

It seems very clear that he is saying the "intent to avoid payment" must be proved. It is not sufficient just to prove that the person in fact made off without making payment on the spot. I doubt further context would modify this to say the opposite.

Also - as I said before, unless dozens of other tables also walked out without paying, the prosecution are not going to have a difficult job of showing that leaving without paying is dishonest. If it was the actions of a reasonable and honest person then more people would do it.

Even you yourself said you would at least leave your details. The other replies on this thread have said they would approach a staff member and say to them. Has anyone actually said they would leave without saying a word and without paying? And yet you think they'd struggle to prove dishonesty *shakes head*

You continue to read more into what I am saying than what I am actually saying.

This whole discussion with you is over two points.

1) It is necessary for the person to have intended to avoid payment for them to be guilty of making off.

2) The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

I believe both points are correct. If we cannot agree on these points there is no point us discussing the evidence. (Nor have I discussed the evidence with you.)

LABMAN

Marktheshark wrote: »

Them in might "wake them up a bit" in future.
Certainly sounds like something needs to.

You should I agree...your advice is rarely correct.

unholyangel

naedanger wrote: »

My statement that you wrongly disagreed with made no reference to any evidence or its quality. I simply said if a person did not intend to avoid payment then they were not guilty of making off. The word "if" is signicant, which is why I have recently been emphasising it. (To spell it out, I did not say either the op was or was not guilty.)


I have nowhere said cases are complex other than they depend on intent and that the burden of proof is on the prosecution.


If someone did not have dishonest intent then they are not guilty. (Could such a person be found guilty? Yes, because wrongful convictions can and do happen.)


I am not obsessing over it. I am merely saying that it is needed for someone to be guilty of "making off". I don't know why you cannot separate what needs to be proved from whether or not there is sufficient evidence for it to be proved.


I understood what you said. Of course anyone will want their defence to be as strong as possible and will make whatever efforts they can to prove their innocence. But this does not mean the legal standard is they have to prove their innocence. They don't (in the case of "making off"). The burden of proof is on the prosecution.


I will do, one more time. This whole discussion is over whether or not a person is guilty of making off if when they left without paying they intended to pay. You said that simply leaving without paying was sufficient.

What Lord Hailsham said was - " To secure a conviction under section 3 the following must be proved:
(1) that the defendant in fact made off without making payment on the spot;
(2) the following mental elements — (a) knowledge that payment on the spot was required or expected of him; and (b) dishonesty; and (c) intent to avoid payment [sc. 'Of the amount due']."

It seems very clear that he is saying the "intent to avoid payment" must be proved. It is not sufficient just to prove that the person in fact made off without making payment on the spot. I doubt further context would modify this to say the opposite.



You continue to read more into what I am saying than what I am actually saying.

This whole discussion with you is over two points.

1) It is necessary for the person to have intended to avoid payment for them to be guilty of making off.

2) The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

I believe both points are correct. If we cannot agree on these points there is no point us discussing the evidence. (Nor have I discussed the evidence with you.)

If you understood what I said about proof then why did you question it?

At no point have I said or implied that the prosecution do not need to prove the guilt. Only that - in the circumstances described to us by OP - that proof would be easy enough to come by and therefore, if they wanted to avoid a conviction, it would be up to them to put forth a defence to counter the prosecutions argument. You seem to have misunderstood that as me saying the burden is on the defendant.

As for not stating whether you think the OP is guilty or not guilty, I suggest you reread your own posts.

And as of yet, I've not even went into the specifics about how not satisfying all elements of a particular charge does not mean that an offence has not been committed. Its actually the reason the section on making off without payment exists.

For example, if you didn't have the means to pay for your meal, that would be obtaining services dishonestly. Yet if you do have the money to pay and decide not to, that is marking off without payment.

Likewise if you leave your details and they are false, its making off without payment and possible fraud. If you leave the correct details it then becomes a civil matter as leaving your details negates the intent to permanently deprive.

However in the circumstances we've been discussing, all of the elements that are necessary to return a guilty verdict are present and accounted for.