Quote:
In England the law is clear. The Theft Act 1998 affords cabbies the protection in Law that anyone leaving a taxi without paying is committing a criminal offence.
Whilst I agree with you on this thread, I should point out the theft act was 1978.......This is courtesty of one of our members.
Making off without payment, or bilking, is now caught by the Fraud Act 2006 Sections 2 and 11 are relevant, however, charges are most easily laid under section 11:
Section 11 “Obtaining services dishonestly” This reads as follows:
(1) A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he obtains services for himself or another—
(a) by a dishonest act, and
(b) in breach of subsection (2).
(2) A person obtains services in breach of this subsection if—
(a) they are made available on the basis that payment has been, is being or will be made for or in respect of them,
(b) he obtains them without any payment having been made for or in respect of them or without payment having been made in full, and
(c) when he obtains them, he knows—
(i) that they are being made available on the basis described in paragraph (a), or
(ii) that they might be, but intends that payment will not be made, or will not be made in full.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to a fine (or to both).
(4) Subsection (3)
(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12months were a reference to 6 months. CPS guidelines on the above:
The elements of the offence are that the Defendant: obtains for himself or another services dishonestly knowing the services are made available on the basis that payment has been, is being or will be made for or in respect of them or that they might be and avoids or intends to avoid payment in full or in part.
This offence replaces obtaining services by deception in the Theft Act 1978 which is partly repealed by the Act.
In many cases, the Defendant will also have committed an offence under Section 2 of the Act (Fraud by making a false representation - that payment will be made or made in full). Prosecutors must decide which offence better reflects the criminality involved. The maximum sentence for the Section 11 offence is five years imprisonment.
a) “Obtains for himself or another”:
Section 11 differs from the offences under the Theft Act in that it requires the actual obtaining of a service (by a dishonest act e. g. non payment).
It is not possible to commit the offence by omission of the service alone. This avoids the situation where unscrupulous service providers might feel able to pressure anyone who had been given services they had not requested.
b) “Services”
Services will have the same definition as in Section 1 of the 1978 Theft Act (Archbold 2007, para. 21-3411). The service must be provided on the basis that it will be paid for.
c) “Dishonestly”:
The Ghosh test will apply, see below.
d) “Knowing” :
the services are made available on the basis that payment has been, is being or will be made for or in respect of them or that they might be and
e) “Avoids or intends to avoid payment in full or in part,” see below:
Under the Fraud Act the Defendant must intend to avoid payment for the service provided (in full or in part). He must have that intention at the time he 'avoids'.
The “Gosh” test of dishonesty:
1 This is the standard practitioners work on crime, available at any decent public library.
R v Ghosh, (1982) CA
D a surgeon was filling in as a consultant at a hospital. He pretended that he had himself carried out surgical operations and that money was due to him. The operations had, in fact, been carried out under the NHS by someone else.
Held: In determining whether D was acting dishonestly, the jury had first to decide whether what was done was dishonest. If it was, the jury must then consider whether D himself must have realised that what he was doing was dishonest by the standards of the ordinary reasonable person.
Payment due?:
R v Aziz [1993] Crim LR 708
[Making off without payment - 'the spot' where payment should be made]
D requested a taxi driver to take him to a club 13 miles away. On arrival D refused to pay the £15 fare claiming that the journey was only four miles. The taxi driver at first started to take them back to their hotel, then took them to the police station where he ran out of the taxi.
Held: The Theft Act 1978 did not require payment be made on any particular spot. 'On the spot' related to the knowledge that the customer had as to when payment should be made. In the case of a taxi, payment may be made whilst sitting in the car or standing at the window but the fares were requested when the customer was still in the car. The obligation to pay continued even when being taken back to the starting point / police station. 'On the spot' was not necessarily the final destination of the journey:
Guilty
NOTE The Fraud Act does not repeal s.3 of the Theft Act; it is still available
Actions a driver could take:
Phone the police.
You can take the offender to the police station, but you must be aware that you are making a citizen's arrest.
You need to be clear on the offence you are arresting for and tell the offender you are taking this action.
You have the right to arrest as the offence is an “arrestable offence”.
You can use reasonable force. Broadly that means you can only use force if the offender is resisting, and can only use sufficient force to apprehend.
This is complicated and subjective.
If force has to be used you are advised not to do so. You run the risk of injury to yourself and damage to your vehicle. If you injure the passenger you could be charged, you have to account for the force used.
As the offence is not a very “serious” one , it is not worth using 'reasonable force' better to let the offender go and report the matter.
which ended in him losing his temper a bit especially when we told him the fare was £5.00. I asked for an appointment to see a senior officer and would you believe that he came back and agreed that it was a criminal matter but unless the culprit could be identified there was not much they could do. My son got the culprets name and we knew his address and low and behold within 7 days the £5.00 was recovered. 