Legal Case Summary
Troughton v MPC [1987] Crim LR 138
Making off without payment under section 3(1) Theft Act 1968, taxi driver’s payment not legally enforceable
Facts
The defendant got into a taxi whilst heavily intoxicated and asked to be driven to Highbury but did not specify his address. The driver stopped to obtain clearer directions from the defendant. An argument ensued during which the defendant accused the driver of taking an unnecessary detour to increase his fare. The driver asked for a specific address and when the defendant refused to answer he drove him to a police station from where he ran off. He was convicted of making off without payment and appealed on the basis that no payment was due.
Issues
To be convicted of the offence of making off without payment contrary to section 3(1) Theft Act 1968, there must be a payment which is lawfully due for services or goods which have been provided to the defendant. The contract between the taxi driver and the defendant was for the driver to take him to Highbury. As the driver had failed to take the defendant to Highbury, he had been in breach of his contractual obligations towards him and, consequently, no payment was legally due and he was under no legal obligation to pay the taxi driver the fare. For the offence of making off, there must be a legally enforceable payment which can be demanded and avoided.
Decision / Outcome
The defendant’s conviction for making off without payment was quashed. As the taxi driver had not taken him home, no legally enforceable obligation to pay the fare had arisen and so there was no payment to avoid.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary remains legally accurate. Troughton v Metropolitan Police [1987] Crim LR 138 correctly states the law on making off without payment under section 3(1) of the Theft Act 1978 (not the Theft Act 1968 as stated in the article — this is a material error: the offence of making off without payment is created by section 3(1) of the Theft Act 1978, not the Theft Act 1968). The substantive legal principle — that a payment must be legally enforceable before criminal liability under section 3(1) can arise — remains good law and has not been displaced by subsequent legislation or case law. The Theft Act 1978 remains in force in this respect. Students should note and correct the statutory citation: the relevant provision is section 3(1) of the Theft Act 1978.
