⇒ The key elements of the section 3 Theft Act 1978 offence are:

1. Making off;
2. Dishonestly;
3. Without having paid as required or expected;
4. Knowledge that payment on the spot is required for goods or services;
5. Intent to avoid payment.

⇒ The actus reus is the making off without having pair as required or expected.

⇒ The mens rea is dishonesty: knowing that payment on the spot is required for goods and services, and an intent to avoid payment.

⇒ This offence carries a maximum setence of two years' imprisonment.

⇒ The offence is deigned to deal with people who, for example, having eaten a meal at a restaurant run out without payment, or having taken a taxi ride disappear without paying the fare.

⇒ The term 'making off' simply means leaving. See, for example, the case of R v Brooks and Brooks (1983)

⇒ The defendant must make off from the place where payment was expected → this includes the door of a restaurant or even the side of an ice cream van.

⇒ There is some doubt whether a defendant can be said to be making off if the victim has given permission to the defendant to leave.

• R v Hammond [1982] appears to suggest that if the owner has consented to the defendant's departure there is no making off.

⇒ The offence requires evidence that goods have been supplied or services done for the defendant.

⇒ There is some dispute about where a defendant takes goods from a self-service supermarket or restaurant: are such goods supplied?

• Griew argues not, but Smith suggests that the goods are supplies, in that they are "made available for sale".

⇒ This means that if the 'victim' has broken the contract with the defendant in such a way that the defendant is not obliged to pay for the service or goods the defendant commits no offence if he or she leaves without paying.

• For example, if a restaurant serves inedible food and the customer storms out without paying he or she may not be guilty under this offence on the basis that he or she was not required to pay for the food.

⇒ It must be shown that there was dishonesty at the time of the making off. Dishonesty here has the same meaning as in the Ghosh test.

⇒ The Ghosh test requires the jury to consider two separate questions in deciding whether or not the defendant was dishonest:

1. Was what the defendant did dishonest according to the standards of reasonable and honest people?
2. Would the defendant realise that reasonable and honest people would regard what he/she did as dishonest

⇒ If the answer to both these questions is ‘yes’ then the defendant is dishonest. If the answer to either question is ‘no’ then the defendant is not dishonest.

⇒ However, note, the full test does not need to be used in all cases; only the first question needs to be asked unless the defendant gives evidence that he or she thought his or her conduct was honest according to the standards of ordinary people.

⇒ This requirement will be most relevant where the defendant is able to persuade the jury that he or she thought the goods or services were provided on the basis that he or she would pay at some point in the future or that another person would pay for the items.

⇒ See the case of R v Aziz [1993].

⇒ Although section 3 Theft Act 1978 does not specifically state that it must be shown that the defendant intended to avoid payment, this wwas established in R v Allen [1985].