- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Shortland (1995) CA: Obtaining Services by Deception
Case Summary
Case Summary
- Defendant (D): Opened bank accounts using a false name and passport.
- Claim: The bank claimed they would not have opened the accounts if they knew of the deception.
- Charge: Obtaining services by deception under Section 1 of the Theft Act 1978.
- Whether it could be assumed that banking services are paid for, even without explicit evidence.
- The judge stated it would be "an affront to common sense" to believe the services would be free.
- The Court of Appeal held that this statement should have been withdrawn from the jury.
- The jury could not infer with certainty that the banking services would be paid for.
- Inference and Certainty: A jury cannot infer crucial elements of a crime (like payment for services) unless there is a basis for doing so with certainty. "Common sense" is not a substitute for evidence.
- Burden of Proof: The prosecution must provide sufficient evidence to prove all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Judicial Direction: Judges must accurately guide juries on permissible inferences and the standard of proof. Directing a jury to assume a disputed fact is improper.
0 Comments