Problem Question: Criminal Law, No.21

Problem Question: Criminal Law, No.21

Problem Question

On his way home from work, Tito stops at a gas station for coffee. At the entrance of the shop, there is an automated coffee machine. Customers are expected to help themselves from the machine and later pay at the till. Tito fills a paper cup with a flat white (the cost of which is 3 pounds) and proceeds to the till. At the till, the shopkeeper looks into the cup and says: ‘white americano…2 pounds please’. Tito says nothing and hands the shopkeeper 2 pounds. After a more careful inspection, though, the shopkeeper realises that the product in the cup is not a white americano, and – while holding the cup in her hands – asks Tito what kind of coffee he ordered at the machine. At this point, Tito snatches the cup from the shopkeeper’s hands, causing some of the hot coffee to spill on the shopkeeper’s lap. He then runs out of the shop with the cup, but instead of using the main entrance, he passes through the stock room. Above the door of this room, there is a sign saying ‘Staff only’. Has Tito committed fraud? Has he committed robbery? Has he committed burglary?

Analysis

1. Liability for Fraud

Elements of Fraud (Fraud Act 2006):

• Dishonesty: To be guilty of fraud, Tito must act dishonestly. Under R v Ghosh (1982) and later clarified in Ivey v Genting Casinos (2017), dishonesty is determined by whether Tito's actions would be considered dishonest by the standards of ordinary people, and whether Tito realised that ordinary people would view his conduct as dishonest. Tito's awareness that he was paying less than the actual price and then fleeing when questioned could be seen as dishonest.

• False Representation (s.2): Fraud by false representation requires Tito to make a false statement with intent to make a gain. However, Tito did not make any explicit false representation; he merely remained silent when the shopkeeper mistakenly identified the drink. There is no legal duty for Tito to correct this mistake.

• Failure to Disclose Information (s.3): Fraud can also occur through a failure to disclose information where there is a legal duty to do so. In this case, there is no such legal duty for Tito to disclose that the drink was a flat white and not a white americano. Since there was no legal duty to correct the shopkeeper’s mistake, this element does not apply.

• Conclusion: Tito is likely not liable for fraud because he did not make a false representation, and there was no legal duty to disclose the correct price.

2. Liability for Robbery

Elements of Robbery (s.8 Theft Act 1968):

• Theft: Robbery requires the elements of theft, which include dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive. Tito's actions could constitute theft as he knowingly paid less than the value of the coffee and then took it without paying the correct price.

• Use or Threat of Force: For robbery, force must be used or threatened immediately before or at the time of the theft. In this case, Tito snatched the cup from the shopkeeper's hands, which might be seen as an act of force. However, in P v DPP (2012), it was held that merely snatching an item without direct physical contact with the person did not amount to force sufficient for robbery. Since Tito’s act involved snatching, it may not meet the threshold for force required for robbery.

• Conclusion: Tito is likely not liable for robbery because the snatching of the cup may not constitute sufficient force under current legal standards.

3. Liability for Burglary

Elements of Burglary (s.9 Theft Act 1968):

• Entry as a Trespasser: Burglary requires the defendant to enter a building or part of a building as a trespasser with the intent to commit certain offences. Tito entered the stock room, which was marked “Staff only,” making him a trespasser.

• Intention to Commit an Offence: For burglary, the defendant must have the intention to commit theft, GBH, or unlawful damage at the time of entry. However, Tito did not enter the store with the intention to steal; he only entered the restricted area while fleeing. There is no evidence he intended to commit any of the specified offences when entering the stock room

• Conclusion: Tito is likely not liable for burglary because his entry into the restricted area occurred after the theft, and there was no intent to steal when he entered the building.

Conclusion

• Fraud: Tito is not likely liable for fraud because there was no false representation or legal duty to disclose the correct price.

• Robbery: Tito is not likely liable for robbery because the act of snatching the cup does not constitute sufficient force under the current legal standards.

• Burglary: Tito is not likely liable for burglary because his entry into the restricted area did not involve the intent to commit theft or other specified offences.