- Published on
KembaraXtra - Case Law-King (1986) CA - Deception under s.15 Theft Act 1968I.
Key Issue: Deception under s.15 of the Theft Act 1968, specifically whether the false representation caused the obtaining of property.
II. Facts:
Key Issue: Deception under s.15 of the Theft Act 1968, specifically whether the false representation caused the obtaining of property.
II. Facts:
- Deception: D falsely claimed to be a tree surgeon.
- False Representation: D told V that four trees in her garden were dangerous and needed felling.
- Financial Gain: D offered to fell the trees for £470 cash.
- Intervention: Police informed while V withdrew cash, D arrested.
- Defense: D argued V was induced by work (felling), not the deception.
- Operative Cause: The key issue is whether the false representation was the operative cause in V obtaining the property (money).
- Question of Fact: This is a question of fact to be decided by the jury.
- Evidence Sufficient: In this case, there was "ample evidence" to suggest payment (if made) would have been a direct result of the false representation.
- Causation: Highlights the crucial element of causation in deception offences. The deception must actually induce the victim to part with property.
- Jury's Role: Emphasizes the jury's role in determining factual issues, particularly causation, in deception cases.
- Focus on Representation: Underscores that the focus is on the impact of the false representation, not just any other potential motivating factors.
0 Comments