without paying for the meal but that he decided to stay on being told about the police being summoned. He was subsequently indicted under s 3 of the Theft Act 1978 with making off from the restaurant without paying for the food and wine which had been consumed. On a submission of no case to answer: Held: ‘Makes off’ refers to making off from the spot where payment is required or expected. What is the spot depends on the circumstances of each case. In this case the spot was the restaurant. The jury would be directed that it was not open to them to find the defendant guilty of the offence on the indictment but that it was open to them to find him guilty of an attempt to commit the offence. R v Brooks and Brooks (1982) 76 Cr App R 66 (CA) Facts: The appellants, father and daughter, along with a person named Smith, had a meal together one evening in the upstairs room of a restaurant. At 10.30 pm the daughter was seen leaving the premises in haste. The manager went upstairs and saw the two men were not there but found Smith downstairs waiting outside the men’s lavatory. Nearby was a door inside the premises which led into the yard. Smith made no comment when asked about the unpaid bill but, after entering the lavatory, later made off through the outer door. The manager chased after him and asked him to come back. While they were re-entering the restaurant, the father came out of it. All three then went back inside. All the father could offer for payment for the bill of £8.52 was a cheque for £130 in his favour, which later turned out to be valueless. Smith said in the father’s hearing that the payment was not due from him, Smith. When the daughter was later interviewed by the police she maintained that Smith had met them earlier that night for the first time and had generously offered to treat her and her father to a meal. Both father and daughter were charged with making off without payment contrary to s3(1) of the Theft Act 1978.

DOI link for without paying for the meal but that he decided to stay on being told about the police being summoned. He was subsequently indicted under s 3 of the Theft Act 1978 with making off from the restaurant without paying for the food and wine which had been consumed. On a submission of no case to answer: Held: ‘Makes off’ refers to making off from the spot where payment is required or expected. What is the spot depends on the circumstances of each case. In this case the spot was the restaurant. The jury would be directed that it was not open to them to find the defendant guilty of the offence on the indictment but that it was open to them to find him guilty of an attempt to commit the offence. R v Brooks and Brooks (1982) 76 Cr App R 66 (CA) Facts: The appellants, father and daughter, along with a person named Smith, had a meal together one evening in the upstairs room of a restaurant. At 10.30 pm the daughter was seen leaving the premises in haste. The manager went upstairs and saw the two men were not there but found Smith downstairs waiting outside the men’s lavatory. Nearby was a door inside the premises which led into the yard. Smith made no comment when asked about the unpaid bill but, after entering the lavatory, later made off through the outer door. The manager chased after him and asked him to come back. While they were re-entering the restaurant, the father came out of it. All three then went back inside. All the father could offer for payment for the bill of £8.52 was a cheque for £130 in his favour, which later turned out to be valueless. Smith said in the father’s hearing that the payment was not due from him, Smith. When the daughter was later interviewed by the police she maintained that Smith had met them earlier that night for the first time and had generously offered to treat her and her father to a meal. Both father and daughter were charged with making off without payment contrary to s3(1) of the Theft Act 1978.

without paying for the meal but that he decided to stay on being told about the police being summoned. He was subsequently indicted under s 3 of the Theft Act 1978 with making off from the restaurant without paying for the food and wine which had been consumed. On a submission of no case to answer: Held: ‘Makes off’ refers to making off from the spot where payment is required or expected. What is the spot depends on the circumstances of each case. In this case the spot was the restaurant. The jury would be directed that it was not open to them to find the defendant guilty of the offence on the indictment but that it was open to them to find him guilty of an attempt to commit the offence. R v Brooks and Brooks (1982) 76 Cr App R 66 (CA) Facts: The appellants, father and daughter, along with a person named Smith, had a meal together one evening in the upstairs room of a restaurant. At 10.30 pm the daughter was seen leaving the premises in haste. The manager went upstairs and saw the two men were not there but found Smith downstairs waiting outside the men’s lavatory. Nearby was a door inside the premises which led into the yard. Smith made no comment when asked about the unpaid bill but, after entering the lavatory, later made off through the outer door. The manager chased after him and asked him to come back. While they were re-entering the restaurant, the father came out of it. All three then went back inside. All the father could offer for payment for the bill of £8.52 was a cheque for £130 in his favour, which later turned out to be valueless. Smith said in the father’s hearing that the payment was not due from him, Smith. When the daughter was later interviewed by the police she maintained that Smith had met them earlier that night for the first time and had generously offered to treat her and her father to a meal. Both father and daughter were charged with making off without payment contrary to s3(1) of the Theft Act 1978.