Metropolitan Police Commissioner v Charles (1977)
Deception – Fraud – Obtaining Pecuniary Advantage by Deception
Facts
The defendant’s bank account was overdrawn and he had been warned by his bank manager not to write more than one cheque a day for more than £30. Despite this, he went to gamble in a casino. He bought chips from the casino using a chequebook backed by a guarantee card issued to him by his bank. The defendant was aware that the amounts that he was drawing for would result in him exceeding his overdraft limit of £100. He was charged with obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception contrary to s16 Theft Act 1968 and convicted.
Issues
Whether the person deceived under s16 Theft Act 1968 had to suffer any pecuniary loss caused by the deception. Whether the pecuniary advantage gained had to be from the deceived party.
Decision/Outcome
The defendant’s conviction was upheld. The defendant had induced, by deception, the casino’s staff through the presentation of the cheque guarantee card into accepting cheques that he knew would not be honoured. Whilst the casino did not suffer any loss as a result of the deception, as the bank had implicitly guaranteed the defendant’s cheques in any event through allowing him use of the card, s16 Theft Act 1968 did not require them to; it only required that the accused, by deception, obtained for himself or another a pecuniary advantage. This the defendant did. There was therefore a causal link between the deception in the form of using the cheque guarantee card to induce the casino staff to accept his cheques, and the pecuniary advantage he gained by obtaining chips for cheques which he did not have the credit to obtain, regardless of the fact that the casino did not suffer a loss.
Updated 20 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the House of Lords decision in Metropolitan Police Commissioner v Charles [1977] AC 177. The case remains good law as an authority on the interpretation of section 16 of the Theft Act 1968 and the elements required for obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception.
However, readers should be aware that the specific offence under section 16 of the Theft Act 1968 (obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception) was repealed and replaced by the Fraud Act 2006, which came into force on 15 January 2007. The 2006 Act abolished the old deception offences and introduced a single offence of fraud under section 1, which can be committed by false representation (s.2), failure to disclose information (s.3), or abuse of position (s.4). The facts of Charles would now more naturally be charged under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 (fraud by false representation). The case retains historical and academic importance, particularly for understanding the development of fraud law, but practitioners should note that the statutory framework it directly concerned no longer applies to current prosecutions.
