Evaluating the Law of Theft Free Essay Example, 1000 words

The sections include 15, 16 and 18 of the Theft Act 1968 (UK). Section 16 deals with obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception in monetary terms. According to the section pecuniary advantage would result in one becoming richer that he was before the act of deception. It also includes situations where one should have paid for a good or service, in the process one does not gain more money but rather one remains with the money he should have paid. The law faced some challenges in the case of DPP v Ray (1974) AC 370 House of Lords where Ray had gone to a restaurant and ordered a meal with an intention to pay, but left after eating when the waiter left the room. Ray was originally not found guilty by a lower court, but the House of Lords overturned the ruling by allowing the case to go to fresh trial. He was convicted subsequently. The House of Lords held that Ray had a pecuniary advantage since he had not paid. He had deceived by representing himself originally as an honest customer (T he Government of the United Kingdom). We will write a custom essay sample on Evaluating the Law of Theft or any topic specifically for you Only $17.96 $11.86/pageorder now The danger with this section was that people would represent themselves as honest but decide to be deceptive in the process. The law would let them free if they proof that they did not intend to do so. This gave the impetus to repeal the section to address the anomaly. The changes were, therefore, carried in section 1 and 2 of the Theft Act 1978. Section 1 included in its definition obtaining services by deception and section 2, evading liability by deception. Section 3 of the act covers spot payment for goods or services. This means that if one does not pay on the spot it means that he is planning to avoid payment. The payments in any case must be legal transactions in order to be enforceable by law (The Crown Prosecution Service). On the other hand, the Fraud Act 2006 provides a statutory definition of fraud as a criminal offence. It puts fraud into three classes; false pretence, failing to disclose information and abuse of office. It goes on to give the liability in terms of fine, imprisonment or both. Therefore, the law covers the laws relating to obtaining of property by false pretence (deception), obtaining pecuniary advantage, the liability of officers’ errors of omission, commission or obtaining property illegally. The last is gaining personal advantage by virtue of their offices and more offences that are covered under the Theft Act 1978 which were still covered under sections mentioned earlier in The Theft Act 1968 (UK) (Campbell, 2007).