Making off without payment as defined in s3 Theft Act 1978 — common mistakes

In a problem question, always distinguish making off without payment from theft. For making off, ownership of the goods (e.g., the food eaten) has often passed to the defendant, so the property no longer 'belongs to another' as required for theft. The dishonesty can also be formed after the service is complete, which would not suffice for theft where dishonesty must coincide with appropriation. Focus on the specific elements of s3: making off, from the spot, after a service, with intent to permanently avoid payment.

No, they would not be guilty of making off without payment. The mens rea requires an 'intention to avoid payment permanently' (R v Allen). A person who genuinely forgets lacks this specific intent. While they still owe a civil debt to the restaurant, their honest mistake means they have not committed the criminal offence.

No, they are distinct offences. Theft (s1 Theft Act 1968) requires the appropriation of property 'belonging to another'. Once a meal is served and eaten, the property in the food has legally passed to the customer. Therefore, it no longer 'belongs to another', and a charge of theft would fail. Section 3 of the Theft Act 1978 was specifically created to fill this legal gap for situations where the dishonest intention is formed after ownership has passed.

No. By agreeing to let the passenger go to a cash machine, the driver has effectively suspended the requirement for payment 'on the spot'. This is similar to the principle in R v Vincent, where an agreement to defer payment negates a key element of the actus reus. The offence would only be committed if the passenger, having been given this permission, then dishonestly decided not to return and pay at all, thereby forming the intent to permanently avoid payment.