Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I've got a situation where a person D jumps out of a taxi without paying before he reaches his destination.

    I know he's still guilty, and I know it's something to do with Aziz, but all the ratios I can find for it on the internet are crappy and imprecise, and it isn't in my textbook.

    Can someone explain exactly why D is still guilty, please?

    Much obliged, rep from my mighty 4 green squares available
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Because he has already taken the service and agreed to pay for the service. That would be like eating half a meal at a restaurant of stealing half a bouquet of flowers, just because you have not stolen the whole product doesn't mean that you don't have to pay.

    If you were allowed to jump out before your destination everyone would just ask the taxi to take them further than they needed and then jump out when they got to where they needed to be.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Fwed, I need the law, not common sense.
    Thanks anyway, but does anyone have a precise ratio for that case? I know it's something to do with where payment is made, but can't really make sense of it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'm talking a little off the top of my head here so please check anything I say. I think your problem lies with interpretation of "the spot" where payment is due. You might argue that it is at arrival at the destination - not yet reached, so no payment yet due and the spot where payment is required is not yet reached. Could you argue that "the spot" where payment is due is actually in the taxi - the customer has made off from it. A quick check of old notes throws up 2 cases - R v McDavitt [1982], customer in restaurant attempts to leave without paying but is stopped, hadn't left "the spot" where payment was due. Moberley v Alsop (1991) - customer avoided ticket barrier in train station but could have paid at destination station, hadn't made off. I think it's also necessary to make out dishonesty so if your customer was caught short and ran for a quick leak he might have a defence. I think there's also an issue about intention to permanently avoid payment, R v Allen [1985] but I made a note that that was decidedly debateable. Sorry but I can't, so far, come up with anything closer to the facts.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Here's the abstract from Aziz - just looked it up.

    A and B took a taxi 13 miles and refused to pay the GBP 15 fare. The taxi driver said he would take them to a police station, at which A and B falsely claimed to be police officers. The driver then said he would return them to their hotel but stopped to alert the police. A and B ran off. They were charged and convicted under the Theft Act 1978, s.3, which requires that a person, who knows that payment is due on the spot, makes off to avoid payment. They appealed on the grounds that the jury had not been properly directed as to the meaning of "on the spot".

    Held, dismissing the appeals, that the Theft Act 1978 did not require payment on any particular "spot", and that A and B had indeed made off with the intention of dishonestly avoiding payment. The fact that they were ostensibly being returned to their hotel at the time was irrelevant.

    Following is from Archbold;

    The wording “on the spot” does not require payment to be made at any particular spot: it means “there and then” and relates to the knowledge which the customer had to have of when the payment was to be made: R. v. Aziz [1993] Crim.L.R. 708, CA.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I think there is another case where the passenger left without paying halfway through the journey - as I recall the driver of the taxi went off course (passenger too drunk to give directions I think, so he went to a police station for help) so the passenger wasn't guilty because of the driver's breach of contract. If you are still looking and you think this could be helpful I'm sure I could track it down.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cliffg)
    Here's the abstract from Aziz - just looked it up.

    A and B took a taxi 13 miles and refused to pay the GBP 15 fare. The taxi driver said he would take them to a police station, at which A and B falsely claimed to be police officers. The driver then said he would return them to their hotel but stopped to alert the police. A and B ran off. They were charged and convicted under the Theft Act 1978, s.3, which requires that a person, who knows that payment is due on the spot, makes off to avoid payment. They appealed on the grounds that the jury had not been properly directed as to the meaning of "on the spot".

    Held, dismissing the appeals, that the Theft Act 1978 did not require payment on any particular "spot", and that A and B had indeed made off with the intention of dishonestly avoiding payment. The fact that they were ostensibly being returned to their hotel at the time was irrelevant.

    Following is from Archbold;

    The wording “on the spot” does not require payment to be made at any particular spot: it means “there and then” and relates to the knowledge which the customer had to have of when the payment was to be made: R. v. Aziz [1993] Crim.L.R. 708, CA.
    Thanks a lot, that's very helpful
    The wording in the last little bit is confusing me a little, though. Is there any chance you could give a word or two of explanation? Where is the "there and then" in this instance? What knowledge did D have?

    (Original post by Festina lente)
    I think there is another case where the passenger left without paying halfway through the journey - as I recall the driver of the taxi went off course (passenger too drunk to give directions I think, so he went to a police station for help) so the passenger wasn't guilty because of the driver's breach of contract. If you are still looking and you think this could be helpful I'm sure I could track it down.
    Troughton?
    I think I'm good with cliffg's info. Much appreciated, though

    edit: I tried to rep you both but failed
    cliffg, I owe you a green thumb
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Thanks a lot, that's very helpful
    The wording in the last little bit is confusing me a little, though. Is there any chance you could give a word or two of explanation? Where is the "there and then" in this instance? What knowledge did D have?



    Troughton?
    I think I'm good with cliffg's info. Much appreciated, though

    edit: I tried to rep you both but failed
    cliffg, I owe you a green thumb
    Yes it is! and thank you
    I think the point on Aziz is that D had knowledge at the time when he ran off. The argument on appeal was that the jury should have been directed to consider whether the requirement to pay no longer applied following the change of plan to return D to his hotel. The CA held that it didn't prevent the offence from being made out in this case that, after D had refused to pay, the driver had then driven somewhere else.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I would agree with the above. I think previous cases had turned on the meaning of where "the spot" was where payment was required but Aziz tried to cut through that and say that if D knew that payment was required there and then that was sufficient. Interesting piece of legislation; I think its genesis might have been to remedy the mischief of "drive offs" at self service petrol stations as they were introduced during the mid 1970's. Prosecution under s 1-7 theft Act wasn't possible as a proprietory interest in the property had passed to the motorist - think that was R v Green - as I remember it he filled his car, went towards the pay window, saw a long queue, couldn't be bothered to wait and drove off. The dishonesty only occurred after he had the property. Sorry, this is sketchy memory and not that well explained, so don't rely on it. I think Making Off was intended to plug that gap. I think you can now look to theft, making off, or the Fraud Act 2006 to cover most instances.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.