- Published on
Legal Terms - Abstracting electricity
The offense, which can result in a maximum of five years' imprisonment and/or a fine, involves the dishonest utilization, squandering, or diversion
Electricity theft is defined under section 13 of the Theft Act 1968. This offense can be committed by an individual who circumvents their electricity meter or reconnects a disconnected meter, or by someone who unlawfully receives a free telephone call (although there is a more specific and presumably less severe offense to address this).
While tampering with a gas or water meter can be considered theft of the gas or water, the case of Low v Blease [1975] Crim LR 513 established that electricity cannot be stolen since it does not qualify as property under section 4 of the Theft Act 1968. Abstracting electricity is now subject to the objective test for dishonesty established by the Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67, [2018] AC 391, as a kind of dishonest behavior. Prior to the enactment of the Computer Misuse Act 1990, those engaged in computer hacking were previously prosecuted for the act of abstracting electricity. However, the aforementioned legislation established hacking as a distinct criminal offense.
The offense, which can result in a maximum of five years' imprisonment and/or a fine, involves the dishonest utilization, squandering, or diversion
Electricity theft is defined under section 13 of the Theft Act 1968. This offense can be committed by an individual who circumvents their electricity meter or reconnects a disconnected meter, or by someone who unlawfully receives a free telephone call (although there is a more specific and presumably less severe offense to address this).
While tampering with a gas or water meter can be considered theft of the gas or water, the case of Low v Blease [1975] Crim LR 513 established that electricity cannot be stolen since it does not qualify as property under section 4 of the Theft Act 1968. Abstracting electricity is now subject to the objective test for dishonesty established by the Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67, [2018] AC 391, as a kind of dishonest behavior. Prior to the enactment of the Computer Misuse Act 1990, those engaged in computer hacking were previously prosecuted for the act of abstracting electricity. However, the aforementioned legislation established hacking as a distinct criminal offense.
0 Comments