The defendant had been requested by her credit card company to return her credit card and not to use it. She used it again before returning it. She was convicted of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception from the store, but her appeal was allowed at the Court of Appeal.
Held: The conviction was restored. Presenting the credit card was a representation that she was authorised by the issuer to make a contract on its behalf.
There was no reason why in cases such as this, where the direct evidence of the witness is not, and cannot reasonably be expected to be available, reliance upon a dishonest representation cannot be sufficiently established by proof of facts from which an irresistible inference of such reliance can be drawn.
Lord Diplock, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Russell of Killowen, Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Roskill
[1981] UKHL 4, [1982] AC 449, [1981] 2 All ER 776, [1981] 3 WLR 88
Bailii
Theft Act 1968 16(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Charles HL 1977
The House was asked as to the dishonest use of a cheque card. The appellant defendant was charged and convicted on two counts of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception, contrary to section 16 of the 1968 Act. The Court of Appeal (Criminal . .
Cited – Rex v Sullivan CCA 1945
The court considered the evidence required as to the mind of the victim of a fraud. Humphrys J said: ‘ It is, we think, undoubtedly good law that the question of the inducement acting upon the mind of the person who may be described as the . .
Cited – Regina v Laverty CACD 1970
Lord Parker CJ said at that the Court should be reluctant to extend the principle in Sullivan further than was necessary. The Crown must always prove its case and one element which will always be required to be proved in these cases is the effect of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.248655
