Worked example 1
Sam eats a meal at a restaurant, receives the bill, and leaves via the toilets without paying. The restaurant expects payment before leaving. Analyse making off under s3 TA 1978. [10 marks]
Show solution outline
1. Goods supplied or service done: Sam received a meal — a service/goods supplied within s3. R v Allen confirms restaurant meals fall within the offence.
2. Payment required or expected: The restaurant expects payment on the spot before the customer leaves — standard restaurant practice. This is not a credit arrangement (R v Aziz — regular account customers may not be expected to pay immediately).
3. Makes off without paying: Sam left without paying — s3 requires making off from the spot where payment is due. R v McDavitt — 'making off' means leaving without payment, not necessarily running away; exiting via toilets still counts.
4. Dishonesty (Ivey): Stage 1 — leaving deliberately without paying a bill is dishonest by ordinary standards. Stage 2 — Sam must have realised reasonable people would view this as dishonest. Deliberate avoidance of payment satisfies both stages.
5. Why not theft? Theft requires appropriation of property belonging to another — the food is consumed; making off avoids difficult ownership/timing questions about when appropriation occurs.
Conclusion: Sam is likely guilty of making off without payment under s3. All elements are satisfied on these facts.