Were we right to walk out?

daytona0

That's like watching two black holes collide into each other

arcon5

Based on the logic some have expressed here, millions worldwide are nothing short of criminals in that they have obtained gas and electricity or telephone services and not paid their bill at the end of the month

marliepanda

arcon5 wrote: »

Based on the logic some have expressed here, millions worldwide are nothing short of criminals in that they have obtained gas and electricity or telephone services and not paid their bill at the end of the month

And based on some it doesn't matter, and as long as they pay their bill sometime in the next decade or so all is good.

discat11

It's not the same though is it?
Gas, water, tv, council tax, electricity, telephone are not goods/services paid for whilst in the premises are they?
The contract for those services allows credit and this is why most have a credit worthiness scoring in place, a completely different type of service.

Silver-Surfer_2

arcon5 wrote: »

Based on the logic some have expressed here, millions worldwide are nothing short of criminals in that they have obtained gas and electricity or telephone services and not paid their bill at the end of the month

Looking at the act.

Subject to subsection (3) below, 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.

Since when has payment been required on the spot?

unholyangel

naedanger wrote: »

I do not understand your point. Are you saying a person will have broken the law if they left without paying even if they did so without dishonest intent? Read what Lord Hailsham said in the following case:

Allen, R v (1985) HL

---

D left a hotel without paying his bill of £1,286. D claimed he genuinely expected to pay the bill and intended merely to defer payment until he received the proceeds of certain business deals.

Held: The words 'with intent to avoid payment' required an intention to avoid payment permanently and an intention to defer payment did not suffice to establish the offence.

Lord Hailsham:
"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']."

Not guilty


This case is completely different. The person refused to pay when requested to do so, was aggressive and ran off.


It is a sensible thing to do but failure to do this does not automatically mean someone had dishonest intent.


If you set out to obtain services and not pay for them then I agree. But there are circumstances where you can leave without paying and without being dishonest. This is explicitly covered in the wording of the statue. And Lord Halisham, no less, has said dishonest intent is required for someone to be convicted of making off.


In summary the daughter left without paying but was not guilty of making off because she did not have dishonest intent. So leaving without payment is not sufficient to be convicted.



I doubt it would get to jury because of the circumstances. Furthermore the people on this forum are a self selecting group, and have not heard legal arguments stating how they should reach their verdict.

That said I would want to avoid any risk of even being accused of dishonesty and partly for that reason would have left contact details in the circumstances. (However I could see myself leaving without paying because of being absent minded in certain circumstances. I fairly recently nearly left a pub without paying for food. Someone else ordered, so payment was not on my mind and I was distracted when we were leaving. I may also have thought they would have paid when ordering - but I had not paid anyone as we were leaving. Luckily the person I was with had not forgotten. However honest mistakes can happen.)

The following case is interesting. The person admitted dishonest intent but was found not guilty.

MacDavitt, R v (1981) CC

---

D had a meal with some friends but refused to pay the bill. He started to leave but did not do so when he was told the police had been called. D admitted he intended to leave the restaurant without paying.

Held: 'Makes off' refers to making off from the spot where the payment is required or expected.
What that spot is depends on the facts in any case. In this case, the spot was the restaurant and he did not leave the restaurant.

Not guilty

Erm, your first case the defendant contacted the hotel and made them aware of his situation. He'd also left items to secure the debt. These were the two pieces he relied on to prove his intent was not to permanently deprive.

What can OP use to prove theirs?

Me quoting R v Aziz was to show that even if you attempt to pay or settle the debt, if you leave without paying, you can still be found guilty of making off without payment.

Dishonest and intent are two separate sections of mens rea. The intent element is intent to avoid paying. The dishonest element is separate from that. The daughter was not dishonest, but she did have intent to avoid paying (for her personally to pay). Its quite a different thing to walk out thinking you had no bill to settle, to wilfully and knowingly leave without paying - thats dishonest. Dishonesty does not require lies be told.

As for the last case you quote, he was found not guilty because he had not left the premises. That is one of the elements that needs satisfied under actus reus. There are 4 elements in total, those are:
- Makes off
- Without payment
- payment required or expected on the spot
- goods or services done.

The elemets for mens rea are:
- knowledge that payment is due on the spot
- dishonesty
- intent to avoid paying.

I must say I'm surprised, I thought you had a better grasp of law that you've shown in this particular post.

naedanger

unholyangel wrote: »

Erm, your first case the defendant contacted the hotel and made them aware of his situation. He'd also left items to secure the debt. These were the two pieces he relied on to prove his intent was not to permanently deprive.

What can OP use to prove theirs?

Me quoting R v Aziz was to show that even if you attempt to pay or settle the debt, if you leave without paying, you can still be found guilty of making off without payment.

Dishonest and intent are two separate sections of mens rea. The intent element is intent to avoid paying. The dishonest element is separate from that. The daughter was not dishonest, but she did have intent to avoid paying (for her personally to pay). Its quite a different thing to walk out thinking you had no bill to settle, to wilfully and knowingly leave without paying - thats dishonest. Dishonesty does not require lies be told.

As for the last case you quote, he was found not guilty because he had not left the premises. That is one of the elements that needs satisfied under actus reus. There are 4 elements in total, those are:
- Makes off
- Without payment
- payment required or expected on the spot
- goods or services done.

The elemets for mens rea are:
- knowledge that payment is due on the spot
- dishonesty
- intent to avoid paying.

I must say I'm surprised, I thought you had a better grasp of law that you've shown in this particular post.

I previously stated "If the person intended to pay later then it would not be against the law."

You responded "Actually it would - unless there was an agreement with the restaurant to pay at a later date then liability to pay has already arisen and the actus reus of without payment is complete." [My emphasis.]

Are you still of the view that someone who left without paying but who intended to pay would be breaking the law? If so how do you reconcile that with the elements of mens rea, which you yourself recognise include intent to avoid paying?

Also how do you reconcile your view (that someone who left without paying but who intended to pay would be breaking the law) with Lord Hailsham when he said the intent to avoid payment had to be proved?

unholyangel

naedanger wrote: »

I previously stated "If the person intended to pay later then it would not be against the law."

You responded "Actually it would - unless there was an agreement with the restaurant to pay at a later date then liability to pay has already arisen and the actus reus of without payment is complete." [My emphasis.]

Are you still of the view that someone who left without paying but who intended to pay would be breaking the law? If so how do you reconcile that with the elements of mens rea, which you yourself recognise include intent to avoid paying?

Also how do you reconcile your view (that someone who left without paying but who intended to pay would be breaking the law) with Lord Hailsham when he said the intent to avoid payment had to be proved?

There is nothing to negate that they were dishonest or that they intended to permanently deprive.

If they had told the staff they were leaving unless payment was taken immediately (or words to that effect) then that would negate the dishonest element. If they had left their details or said they would return when it was quieter to pay, that would negate the intent to permanently deprive.

But OP did none of that and unless dozens of other tables also did the same, they're going to be hard pushed to show that their actions were that of a reasonable and honest person.

Don't get me wrong, not trying to sit in moral judgement of the OP - I empathise with the long waiting times and can understand how most people probably wouldn't be aware they may be committing an offence by doing (or not doing) something.

But OP certainly hasn't helped the situation by only making eye contact and then leaving without further ado.

Imagine (I know its hypothetical but also circumstances that could quite genuinely have happened):
Restaurant states they covered 400 tables that night. They state 1 (or perhaps 2) left without paying (one being the OP). The defendants did not notify any staff of their departure and did not approach any member of staff with the bill in hand asking to pay it - despite numerous staff members walking past them as you would expect in a busy restaurant. They just quietly left.

Defendants then say they did not permanently deprive as they intended to return later to make payment but have nothing in support of this other than their own say so.

And you're confident that a not guilty verdict would be returned?

Would it be such a stretch for the prosecution to imply they left without saying anything because their intent was to leave without paying? As I said, OP hasn't put themselves in the best of positions.

shezzone

Thankyou for your reply everybody. We have been back in touch with the, apparently it takes 4-7 days to reply (ironically). There are other factors involved which I didn't mention and we are awaiting their response. I have also made my point clear on their Facebook page. Short of standing in the doorway with a Mariachi band there was little likelihood of gabbing anybody's attention that night. This was not an isolated event that evening as I also read on their Facebook page. If you do wish to dine at this chain of restaurants I suggest you don't book. They leave your data page open to the public on their booking screens. This point has also been raised with them. I can understand how some of your comments may have made us look like swag bagging thieves. We aren't. You weren't there that evening. We are in contact with them. I'll keep you posted.

BrentMeister

shezzone wrote: »

Thankyou for your reply everybody. We have been back in touch with the, apparently it takes 4-7 days to reply (ironically). There are other factors involved which I didn't mention and we are awaiting their response. I have also made my point clear on their Facebook page. Short of standing in the doorway with a Mariachi band there was little likelihood of gabbing anybody's attention that night. This was not an isolated event that evening as I also read on their Facebook page. If you do wish to dine at this chain of restaurants I suggest you don't book. They leave your data page open to the public on their booking screens. This point has also been raised with them. I can understand how some of your comments may have made us look like swag bagging thieves. We aren't. You weren't there that evening. We are in contact with them. I'll keep you posted.

Whats wrong with the old fashioned telephone? Or popping back into the resturant? Seems like you're making minimal effort to rectify this situation.

Leaving the data page open? What information does that reveal, name and telephone number?

I for one moment dont believe had you made an effort you could have caught the attention of a member of staff. Starring gormlessly at everyone that walks past isnt the same as saying "Excuse me, can you take payment"