HERE IS A LESSON ON WHY YOU SHOULD NOT PAY ATTENTION TO ARMCHAIR LAWYERS:
Sorry Ben, but wrong information is dangerous advice and you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Sorry, Wowgeek but you are also providing wrong information. I won't do what you did and be so rude as to say 'you clearly have no idea what you're talking about', but your information is also inaccurate.
There is no robbery for two reasons, first there is no theft . . .
Actually, it is currently unclear on the facts whether there has been a theft. The issue relating to the theft will be whether the property in this case, i.e. the money, still belonged to the OP or the proprietary right or title to it had passed to the WG. It is not clear that the proprietary right or title to that money had been passed to the WG, so I shall leave you to look up why yourself . . .
The most likely offence is S.2 Fraud Act 2007 . . .
Actually, the Fraud Act is 2006, and not 2007 (again, I won't be so rude as to say 'you clearly have no idea what you're talking about', but your information is also inaccurate.)
. . . which replaces the 1978 Theft Act . . .
The Theft Act
1968 and not the Theft Act 1978 is relevant here. The Fraud Act
2006 did not replace the Theft Act 1968 or 1978, only certain parts of them. You are probably thinking of the old section 15 Theft Act 1968 - obtaining property by deception (which I think you have confused with section 1 Theft Act 1978 - obtaining services by deception), the superseding provision now being section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 (again, I won't be so rude as to say 'you clearly have no idea what you're talking about', but your information is also inaccurate.)
. . . but I don't know if that works because under the old act the service wasn't lawful . . .
There is nothing presently or in the past contained in the Theft Act 1968 that relates to a 'lawful' service in the context you describe. There is contract law to the effect that a contract for sexual services is unenforceable in the courts for public policy reasons, but your statement above is complete misconceived, wrong in law and in principle. (again, I won't be so rude as to say 'you clearly have no idea what you're talking about', but your information is also inaccurate.)
. . . and therefore no offence was committed. Note I said not 'lawful' not 'illegal' they are two different things . . .
Thank you for drawing the distinction. But again, what you have written is completely wrong as a matter of law and principle. It is absolutely lawful to provide sexual services for payment. That does not mean, however, the underlying contract for such services is unenforceable as a matter of contract law (see the comments immediately above). (again, I won't be so rude as to say 'you clearly have no idea what you're talking about', but your information is also inaccurate.)
I know the 2007 act made some changes but I can't find that particular reference.
I know the
2006 Act made some changes, and I can find them . . .
External Link/Members Only . . . my concern is that should punters get into this position and think the law is on their side . . .
Mine too. But might I suggest you learn a little more about law before you start advising others about it. Your lack of knowledge and analysis is redolent of either a policeman or a law student. A little knowledge (and I am being very generous in your case) is a dangerous thing.
Oh, and before you next tell someone else 'you clearly have no idea what you're talking about', please do that person the honour of ensuring you do know what you are talking about, as unfounded arrogance is very unbecoming.
