Law on Fraud and Criminal Damage

Previous law under the fraud and deception was thought to be in a complete freeform. As a result Fraud Act 2006 was enacted, it repealed ss15, 15A, 15B, 16 and 20(2) of Theft Act 1968 and also ss 1 and 2 of the Theft Act 1978. These offences were replaced with offence of fraud and it can be committed in different ways such as, fraud by false representation and obtaining services dishonestly. Fraud by false representation is covered under the s2 of the Fraud Act 2006. Actus reus of the offence is that defendant must make false representation and also mens rea contains three parts to it.

Defendant must be dishonest, or must know or believe the representation to be untrue or misleading and there must be an intention to make a gain or cause loss. There are different section covered under the representation and the Fraud Act provides some help by the meaning of the representation, s 2(3) states ‘’representation’ means any representation as to fact or law, including making a representation as to the state of mind of – (a) the person making the representation or (b) any other person.

’ By containing a different section under the representation it becomes easier to be recognised with the right lawful Act. Representation to machines can be made to a person or to a machine s 2(5) covers all devices and system, it’s also designed to cover the many situations in the modern world where it’s possible to obtain property via a machine or the internet or any other automated system. Express representation makes it clear that there are no limits on the way in which the representation should be expressed.

It points out that it could be written, spoken or posted on a website. The last section that covers representation is implied representation, it contains many ways in which it’s possible to make an implied representation through conduct. In DPP V Ray (1937) case, defendant went to the restaurant with his three friends and he knew he don’t have enough money but one of his friends said that he will lend it for him to pay for the meal. However they decided not to pay and ran off without making a payment.

House of Lords held that even the original representation was genuine the change of mind presents deception. In the situation of Farah’s she made the same mistake, she knew she have only a little bit of money with her, when the taxi stopped at the traffic light she ran away without paying, the same as Ray have done in his case, they made p their mind and ran away without making a payment. There isanother similar case that applies to Farah, in Lambie (1981) defendant had a credit card with ? 200 limit.

She exceeded this limit and bank that issued card wrote a letter asking her to return the card. Farah bought train tickets to the other city using her credit card that have reached the limit and implied that there is enough money, she will be found guilty for fraud because she made a false representation of containing enough money in her bank account. Another most important section that covers fraud is making off without payment, this offence was created when it became obvious that Theft Act 1968 left some gaps in the law where defendant was not guilty of any offence.

Farah will be recognised with this offence as she left cab without paying for its service and also with s 11 Fraud Act 2006 obtaining services dishonestly, as she have made a mistake when she took a cab knowing that she may not have enough money and ran away from it when it stopped at the traffic lights and also using her credit card that have reached the limit on its services, Farah will be found guilty for all of those offences. Criminal damage is contained under the Criminal Damage Act 1971, and it provides four types of defences: the basic offence of criminal damage, aggravated criminal damage, arson and finally aggravated arson.

The basic offence the basic offence is set out under s 1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971. Destroy or damage phrase has not been defined in the Act, however the same phrase was used in the law prior to the 1971 Act. Looking at Roe v Knigerelee (1986) case, Divisional Court stated that whether property has been damaged was a matter of the fact and degree. In case D had smeared mud on the walls of the police cell, which cost ? 7 to be cleaned. It was held that this was damage even if it hasn’t been a permanent damage.

Gary held grudge that he had against Henry, have affected behavior of Gary, because he decided to loosen wheel nuts on a bicycle that Henry was using. As Gary took his actions and cause injuries to Henry, he will be found guilty, even if the damages won’t be permanent, there was a risk of a death as he decided to harm him. Mens rea of basic offence is that defendant must do the damage or destruction rather intentionally or recklessly. Defendant must intend to destroy or damage property belonging to another.

In case Pembliton (19874) case defendant threw a tone at some men with whom he had been fighting. The stone missed then but it hit and broke window, as defendant didn’t had intention to break the window so he was found as not guilty. However Gary will be guilty forhis actions because he intended to loosen up bicycle wheel and cause Henry an injury. Endangering life it’s an aggravated offence of criminal damage under s 1(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971. Danger to life must come from the destruction or damage, not from another source in which damage was caused.

In Steer (1987) Defendant fired three shots at the home of his former business partner, causing damage to the house. The Court of Appeal quashed his conviction for endangering life by causing criminal damage as they held that danger came from shots. Gary started the cause of injuries by losing the wheel nuts on the bicycle and causing Henry serious accident. And finally the arson defence is stated s 1(3) Criminal Damage Act 1971 where and offence under s 1 Criminal Damage Act 1971 is committed by destroying or damaging property by fire, the offence becomes arson.

This will not be suitable for the Gary’s case because he had not set Henry on fire, he only loosen up his bicycle nuts causing him an accident. Gary will be found guilty for basic offence and endangering life, because basing on the cases given under each circumstance he manages to meet all the criteria required. He will be found guilty because he managed to cause harm for Henry as he loosen up the bicycle wheels. He knew his actions and still chose to accomplish them as he had a grudge against victim.