R v Rai (1999) The Times, November 10
Dishonesty – Deception by Silence – Fraud
Facts
In June of 1996 the defendant, Rai, applied to Birmingham City Council’s social services for a grant in order to adapt the bathroom in his home for his elderly mother. The council approved a grant of £9,500 in March 1997. The defendant’s mother died in July of that year. Rai remained silent towards the council regarding his mother’s death and the council were unaware of her death until after they had completed their work by October 1997. The defendant was charged with deception contrary to s15(4) Theft Act 1968 and with obtaining services by deception contrary to s1 Theft Act 1978. Prior to trial, counsel for the defendant asked the judge to rule on whether or not silence or inactivity could give rise to deception under the relevant provisions. After the judge declared that they could, Rai pleaded guilty. This was appealed.
Issues
Whether the trial judge was right in ruling that silence or inactivity could constitute a ‘deception’ under s15(4) Theft Act 1968 and s1 Theft Act 1978. Whether fraud could be committed by an omission or required a positive act of the defendant. Whether the defendant had in fact made a positive representation that continued.
Decision/Outcome
Rai’s appeal was dismissed. The trial judge was correct to rule that silence could constitute a ‘deception’ because the defendant’s conduct, as a whole, constituted an ongoing course of deception and a representation that his mother was in fact alive. Once his mother had died, he can no longer have had the intention that she would benefit from the works done to his bathroom and at this point he must have formed a new intent. Therefore, applying DPP v Ray [1974] AC 370, failing to notify the council constituted a positive acquiescence and a straightforward deception.
Updated 20 March 2026
This article accurately describes the facts, issues, and outcome of R v Rai [2000] 1 Cr App R 242 (decided 1999). The legal principles discussed remain historically correct. However, readers should be aware of an important statutory development: the offences under s.15 of the Theft Act 1968 and s.1 of the Theft Act 1978 (obtaining property or services by deception) were abolished by the Fraud Act 2006, which came into force on 15 January 2007. Deception-based conduct of the kind considered in Rai is now primarily prosecuted under the Fraud Act 2006, particularly s.2 (fraud by false representation) and s.3 (fraud by failing to disclose information). The case remains relevant as part of the historical development of fraud law and to illustrate how courts approached deception by omission under the old regime, but it no longer reflects the current statutory framework. Students should treat it as authority on the former law rather than the present position.
