Fraud — SQE1 practice question

A man tries to get into a cinema without paying by pulling open a fire exit at the side of the building. The door is locked and an alarm sounds as he pulls at it. A member of staff reaches him within seconds and walks him out onto the street. He never got into the auditorium and saw none of the film. Tickets for that screening were on sale at the counter he had walked past a moment earlier. He admits that he had intended to watch the film without buying one.

Can he be convicted of the offence of obtaining services dishonestly here?

Option A. Incorrect answer. Yes, because he dishonestly set out to obtain the service of watching the film.
Option B. Correct answer. No, because the offence requires the services actually to have been obtained.Correct
Option C. Incorrect answer. Yes, because he intended a gain for himself and exposed the cinema to a risk of loss.
Option D. Incorrect answer. No, because a cinema is open to the public and charges only for the use of a seat.
Option E. Incorrect answer. Yes, because forcing a fire exit is itself a dishonest act done in order to obtain a service.

Why

B is correct. Section 11 is not committed unless the services are in fact obtained, and that is the feature which distinguishes it most sharply from s.1 fraud. Fraud is complete the moment a false representation is made with the necessary intent, whether or not anything comes of it; s.11 has a result element built into it. This man got no further than a locked door, so the actus reus is missing however clear his intention was.

A is incorrect because setting out to obtain services is not obtaining them. C is incorrect because it imports the gain and loss language of s.5, which qualifies the s.1 offence and not s.11. D is incorrect because a cinema is not free to enter; it charges for admission, which is exactly the service in question. E is incorrect because a dishonest act is only one ingredient, and it cannot supply the obtaining. He may, however, be charged with attempting the offence under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, and pulling at the door would readily be found to be more than merely preparatory.

Why