[2] The deception must be the operative cause of the obtaining of property, and this is a question of fact for the jury to decide, requiring proof that the victim would not have acted in the same way had they known the truth.
But, in Metropolitan Police Commissioner v Charles,[4] a causal link was implied even though the victim admitted not considering the question of whether the bank would or would not honour the cheque.
In R v Button[6] the defendant falsely represented that he was not a good runner and so obtained a better handicap than he deserved for the race which he won.
[7] However, section 2 of the Theft Act 1968 does not apply to section 15 although the test derived from R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053 may apply if the defendant claims to believe that he acted in a way matching the ordinary person's idea of honesty, i.e. a defendant will be dishonest where he realised that he was doing something that reasonable and honest people would regard as dishonest.
The conclusion was that juries are not confused by the need to consider dishonesty as a separate element from deception and that this aspect of the law does not need reform.
Thus, the offence might be committed where the "victim" is induced to transfer ownership of property to another or to agree not to enforce his right to recover goods from that other.
In R v Seward[9] the defendant was acting as the "front man" in the use of stolen credit cards and other documents of identification to obtain goods.
This was a role not unlike that of the "mule" in drug importation cases because the front man takes the risk of going into shops where CCTV cameras may clearly identify him.
The Court of Appeal considered sentencing policy for deception offences involving "identity theft" – an increasingly common phenomenon.
The offence of obtaining a money transfer by deception, contrary to section 15A of the Theft Act 1968, was specifically enacted to remove the problem caused by R v Preddy and Slade, R v Dhillon.
[10] This case held that there no section 15 offence was committed when the defendant caused transfers between the victim's and his own bank account by deception.