201221906
Introduction
Justin, Robbie, and Sarah give rise to offences such as fraud, theft, complicity, murder, and
grievous bodily harm, as well as issues in relation to defences. This essay will assess liability
for these offences by taking each defendant (D) in turn.
Justin
Fraud
Where Justin uses the victim’s (V) bank details to transfer money to Robbie’s account, he will
be liable for fraud by false representation.1 Fraud is governed under the Fraud Act 2006 (FA).
The actus reus (AR) is D must make a representation, which must be false. S. 2(6) states the
representation may be express or implied, this rule was established before the FA 2006 by the
precedent set in Barnard, which held that an implied deception was sufficient.2 The Law
Commission argued that the previous law was inadequate as it omitted to include false
representation to machines, and subsequently was becoming “increasingly indefensible”.3
This was revised by the implementation of the FA 2006, as s.2 (5) clarifies that one can now
make a false representation to a system. S. 2(2) defines a false representation as ‘untrue or
misleading’, and the person making it must know this. Justin has sufficed this as he has made
an implied false representation to the bank by using V’s bank details, and knew the
representation was untrue and misleading.
The mens rea (MR) for fraud by false representation comprises of three elements: dishonesty;
the knowledge that the representation is, or might be, untrue or misleading; an intention to
make a gain or cause a loss or risk of loss. Previously, the courts used the two-stage test from
Ghosh,4 however this was replaced with the test from Ivey, under Ivey the jury must first
ascertain the actual state of the individual’s knowledge as to the facts, and secondly they must
apply the standards of ordinary decent people.5 Justin is liable by these standards, as he was
aware the representation was false, and the ordinary decent person would likely find this
1
Fraud Act 2006 s. 2 (FA).
2
R v Barnard [1837] 7C&P 784.
3
The Law Commission, Fraud, 2002.
4
R v Ghosh [1982] EWCA Crim 2.
5
Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67.
1
Introduction
Justin, Robbie, and Sarah give rise to offences such as fraud, theft, complicity, murder, and
grievous bodily harm, as well as issues in relation to defences. This essay will assess liability
for these offences by taking each defendant (D) in turn.
Justin
Fraud
Where Justin uses the victim’s (V) bank details to transfer money to Robbie’s account, he will
be liable for fraud by false representation.1 Fraud is governed under the Fraud Act 2006 (FA).
The actus reus (AR) is D must make a representation, which must be false. S. 2(6) states the
representation may be express or implied, this rule was established before the FA 2006 by the
precedent set in Barnard, which held that an implied deception was sufficient.2 The Law
Commission argued that the previous law was inadequate as it omitted to include false
representation to machines, and subsequently was becoming “increasingly indefensible”.3
This was revised by the implementation of the FA 2006, as s.2 (5) clarifies that one can now
make a false representation to a system. S. 2(2) defines a false representation as ‘untrue or
misleading’, and the person making it must know this. Justin has sufficed this as he has made
an implied false representation to the bank by using V’s bank details, and knew the
representation was untrue and misleading.
The mens rea (MR) for fraud by false representation comprises of three elements: dishonesty;
the knowledge that the representation is, or might be, untrue or misleading; an intention to
make a gain or cause a loss or risk of loss. Previously, the courts used the two-stage test from
Ghosh,4 however this was replaced with the test from Ivey, under Ivey the jury must first
ascertain the actual state of the individual’s knowledge as to the facts, and secondly they must
apply the standards of ordinary decent people.5 Justin is liable by these standards, as he was
aware the representation was false, and the ordinary decent person would likely find this
1
Fraud Act 2006 s. 2 (FA).
2
R v Barnard [1837] 7C&P 784.
3
The Law Commission, Fraud, 2002.
4
R v Ghosh [1982] EWCA Crim 2.
5
Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67.
1
