Analyse making off without payment
Distinguish payment expected on the spot and permanent avoidance from a civil debt or an agreed deferral.
Exam scope and assessment notes
AS and full A Level · section 2.2.6. Original educational scenarios about the law of England and Wales, checked on 14 October 2026. Model answers are formative reasoning, not advice about a real dispute, Cambridge marks or predicted grades. Read the exact statute, case and exam-year source where a rule is disputed or changes. A larger annotated authority bank, full unseen papers and specialist law-teacher review remain outstanding.
Before you begin
- Read a short source carefully and separate its rule from the facts
- Explain which element a fact supports and what is still uncertain
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
What should a legal problem answer connect?
What you will learn
- Apply Theft Act 1978 section 3
- Explain dishonesty, required intention, exceptions and statutory maximum
Identify when payment is due
Section 3 concerns a person who knows payment on the spot is required or expected, dishonestly makes off without paying as required, and intends to avoid the payment due. Goods or services and the relevant payment expectation must be identified; leaving with a genuine agreement for later payment is not the same set of facts.
Allen establishes the required intention to avoid payment permanently rather than merely delay it. Dishonesty and knowledge of the on-the-spot requirement remain separate. A payment dispute or debt alone is not automatically this criminal offence.
Keep the offence's limits in view
The statutory provision excludes the specified situations involving unlawful supply or services where payment is not legally enforceable. A fact-specific answer must use the source rather than assume every unpaid transaction qualifies. Making off and the location/context of payment also need examination.
The ordinary Crown Court maximum under section 4 is two years. That is a ceiling, not a term automatically imposed for an unpaid bill. Liability, allocation and sentence must be kept distinct.
Sources for this lesson
Pause and explain
Is intention merely to delay payment always the required Allen intention?
Worked example
A fictional café agrees that D can pay tomorrow. D leaves under that agreement. Does departure alone establish making off without payment?
Show the worked solution
- Payment was not required on the spot under the supplied agreement.
- Dishonesty and permanent-avoidance intention are not stipulated.
- A civil or later breach issue is separate.
Answer No. The agreed deferral changes the payment expectation, and departure alone does not prove dishonesty or intent permanently to avoid payment. The answer must not turn every unpaid bill into the offence.
Try a topic test
Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.
Test this topic →From guided practice to a new situation
Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.
Guided: Explain the significance of the café's agreed deferral.
Give me a hint
Use the stated payment arrangement.
Compare my reasoning
- The café permits later payment.
- On-the-spot payment is not expected in the same way.
- Departure is consistent with the arrangement.
Agreed deferral means leaving is not itself evasion of the stipulated on-the-spot requirement. The facts cannot be changed into immediate payment terms merely to produce a criminal conclusion.
Look for these in your work
- Uses the agreement
- Links it to the element
- Avoids invented terms
Independent: A source stipulates D dishonestly leaves knowing payment is due immediately and intending never to pay. Identify the elements it supports.
Give me a hint
Connect each fact to the test.
Compare my reasoning
- Immediate-payment knowledge is supplied.
- Dishonest departure without payment is supplied.
- Permanent avoidance is supplied.
Those facts support knowledge of the payment requirement, dishonest making off without payment and permanent-avoidance intention. The transaction, statutory scope and any remaining facts still need checking before the full conclusion.
Look for these in your work
- Maps knowledge
- Maps conduct
- Maps intention
Application: A student says inability to pay automatically proves permanent-avoidance intention. Assess.
Give me a hint
A circumstance and an intention are different.
Compare my reasoning
- Financial inability may be evidence of circumstances.
- It does not alone prove the person's intention.
- Examine the arrangement, conduct and evidence of intent.
Inability to pay does not itself establish the required dishonest intention permanently to avoid payment. The answer must assess the evidence and payment arrangement rather than infer a complete offence from financial difficulty alone.
Look for these in your work
- Separates circumstance and intent
- Preserves all elements
- Avoids an unsupported inference
Common mistakes
- Treating any debt as a crime
- Ignoring agreed deferred payment
- Equating temporary delay with permanent avoidance
What can you explain now?
Is intention merely to delay payment always the required Allen intention?
Compare with the explanation
No, permanent avoidance is required
The required intention is to avoid the payment permanently, alongside the other elements.
After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.
Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.
Make it stick
Is intention merely to delay payment always the required Allen intention?
If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.