Obtaining false works
Date Updated: January 2012
Title: Theft
Offence: Obtaining property by deception - false works
Legislation: S15 Theft Act 1968
Commencement Date: Repealed as from 15.1.2007 by the FRAUD ACT 2006 , however under transitional provisions this section is still applicable to offences where the offence was partly committed before 15th January 2007- see section14(2) and schedule 2 of the Fraud Act for detailed provisions.
Mode of Trial: Either Way
Statutory Limitations & Maximum Penalty: 10 years
Culpability & Harm
- Substantial amounts involved
- Relatively substantial loss sustained
- Planning
- Professionalism
- Entirely fraudelent enterprise
- Target vulnerable victims
- Effect upon victim
- Offending carried out over a long period
- Offender acting with others
- Offender recruited others
- Offender prime mover
- Motivated by greed or desire to live beyond his or her means
Aggravating & Mitigating Factors
None
Relevant Sentencing Guidelines (If Any)
R v CLARK [1998] 2 Cr.App.R. (S.)142 B6-12003 which updated the guidance issued in R v BARRICK [1985] 7 Cr.App.R. (S.)142 B6 - immediate imprisonment is inevitable in breach of trust cases unless there are exceptional circumstances or the amount of money involved is very small.
- Less than £17,500 up to 21 months
- £17,500 to £100,000 2-3 years
- £100,000 to £250,000 3-4 years
- £250,000 to £1 million 5-9 years
- £1 million or more 10 years +
R v ROACH [2002] 1 CR.AP.R(S) 259
The defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of obtaining a money transfer by deception. The defendant worked for a firm supplying carers to elderly and infirm people. Over a period of about two years cashed cheques to the value of £2,875 from an 80 year old client. 18m. Clark [1998] 2 Cr.App.R. (S.) 95 and Barrick (1985) 7 Cr.App.R.(S.) 142, guidelines were not relevant to offending of the kind under consideration. They related to theft in breach of trust from employers, charitable bodies or similar organisations. The distinctive feature of this case was that it involved the exploitation of pitifully vulnerable people, whether due to age or infirmity or a combination of both. The sentence passed could not be said to be manifestly excessive; in the Court's view it was an entirely correct and appropriate sentence.
Relevant Sentencing Case Law
AG's Reference Nos. 42, 43, and 44 of 2006 (William Alfred Clemow and others) [2007] 1Cr.App.R.(S.)
Pleaded guilty to various counts of conspiring to obtain property by deception. Over a period of three years the offenders approached retired people told them that their properties needed repairing and obtained £622K. "Cold blooded cruelty". This is a case in which consecutive sentences could have been passed which might have produced a result in excess of the 10 year maximum which could then be discounted so as to reach the maximum sentence in the individual case. 7 and a half years, 5 and a half years and 4 and a half years increased to 10, 8 and 4 and a half years
R v SEYMOUR [2002] 2 Cr.App.R.(S.) 96 (at 442), [2002] EWCA Crim. 444
Convicted of obtaining property by deception. The complainant replied to an advert in Yellow Pages and paid £3K to the defendant for roofing works which were not carried out. Householders are entitled to assume that if they employ a person to do repairs on their house it will be done for the money charged and taken. No one should have to suffer confidence tricks from "cowboy roofers" or other repairers. 15 months.
R v KENT [1990] 12 Cr.App.R.(S.) 242
Pleaded guilty to five counts of theft and one of attempted theft. He had called on an elderly lady and offered to carry out some minor repairs to her house, worth about £100. He then asked for £2,000 and subsequently obtained cheques from her for over £14,000, not all of which were cleared. The lady lost a total of £7,500 as a result. Targeting the elderly and acting with another. 3 years.
R v BENNETT [1992] 13 Cr.App.R.(S.) 586
Pleaded guilty to 12 counts of obtaining by deception and one of conspiring to obtain by deception. The appellant obtained various sums of money from elderly people by pretending to carry out repairs to their homes and then demanding large sums for doing so. Previous for similar. 4 years.
R v TRIPPIER [1993] 14 Cr.App.R.(S.) 177
Pleaded guilty to two offences of obtaining by deception. The appellant approached a lady aged 70, told her that her garden wall needed repair and offered to do the work. The appellant carried out work to the wall which if done properly would have been worth £800; he charged £11,393 and received £6,000. The second offence involved obtaining about £1,100 from a lady aged 82 for badly done work to her house. Genuine remorse. 3 years.
R v CAMPBELL [1995] 16 Cr.App.R.(S.) 20
Convicted of obtaining by deception. The appellant was asked to do some minor building work by a lady aged 78. He claimed that further work was necessary, and eventually obtained a total of £64,000 from the victim. There was evidence that with the exception of certain minor repairs none of the work was required and the true value of the work undertaken was about £5,000. 4 years.
R v FLYNN [1999] 1 Cr.App R.(S.) 413
Pleaded guilty to four counts of obtaining by deception and two counts of procuring the execution of a valuable security. The appellant carried out repairs on a number of elderly people's property and charged excessive amounts for his work (£5K). Previous convictions for similar offences. 4 years.
R v CONNORS [2006] 2 Cr.App.R.(S.)
Convicted of obtaining by deception. The defendant told a man (60y) that is guttering needed replacing, took him to the bank and withdrew £3K. Victim intimidated by three men. High risk of re-offending. 3 and a half years.
R v MITCHELL [2006] 2 Cr.App.R.(S.)
Convicted of eight offences of obtaining property or a money transfer by deception and asked for five offences of a similar nature to be taken into consideration. The appellant obtained £94K over three years by falsely claiming that an elderly mans roof needed repairing and £7.5K from a lady aged 83 by a similar pretence. The offences took place over a considerable time and the victim lost a considerable portion of the value of his house in order to pay the appellant for the unnecessary works carried out. 6 years.
Ancillary Orders:
- Restitution
- Compensation
Consider Also:
- POCA
- Financial Reporting Order S15 SOCA 2005
