- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Doukas (1978) CA - Going Equipped to Steal & Deception
I. Case Facts
I. Case Facts
- Defendant (D): Hotel waiter.
- Charge: Going equipped to steal (s 25 of the Theft Act 1968).
- Circumstances:
- D found with bottles of wine not sold by the hotel.
- D admitted to selling the wine to customers for personal profit.
- Whether D's deception was operative on customers who bought the wine.
- Operative deception required for conviction.
- Hypothetical Question for Customers:
- "Why did you buy this wine?" OR
- "If you had been told the truth, would you have bought the commodity?"
- Jury Decision: The jury must decide how a hypothetical customer would answer.
- Court's Conclusion: "In this case, the hypothetical customer would answer that he would not buy the wine if he knew of D's deception."
- Reasoning (per Lane LJ): If a customer was dissatisfied, they would have no recourse to the hotel.
- The prosecution must prove that the deception was a material factor in the customer's decision to purchase the goods.
- The court uses a hypothetical customer test to determine whether the deception would have influenced the purchase.
- Lack of recourse in case of dissatisfaction due to the deception is a significant factor.
0 Comments