It isn't obtaining property/pecuniary advantage by deception because:-

1. (Assuming he said nothing as he gave in ticket) the representation was not dishonest.

2. In any event, the representation was not effective. The reason the £ was handed over was not the ticket, but the mistake.

It is probably theft. We can assume it is "property belonging to another".

3“Appropriates”.
(1)Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.


That is S3 of the the Theft Act 1968.

What it means is that a person can receive property innocently but SUBSEQUENTLY, if he realises he shouldn't have it, but keeps it, it is "appropriation". An example is the bank crediting a customer, mistakenly, with £squillions. The recipient realises it is not his at some stage but STILL spends it = appropriation. Notifies his bank as soon as he sees it = no problem.

The punter , at some stage, realises he is overpaid by £3k+. He decides to keep it. At that point he "dishonestly"(because he knows it is not his) "appropriates" (because he should return it) the £ "intending to permanently deprive" (because he has not returned it) .

I would have little problem in prosecuting this as theft. Smaller amounts would not be so easy ("I had no idea they had overpaid me £20/given me £10 too much change etc etc"). But £3k+ is blatant and proves the dishonesty.

the not putting slip through the automated payout chequer seems a bit thin to me
so do we no where the mistake happened he could have had 3750 returns written on his slip and as a 1000 or 100 bettor,I,d say he would deffo have checked the slip for correct,names,price,returns on leaving joint so either way had some bottle accepting the winnings with a straight face

a rather clever ruse

Has to involve the geyser being present when the 1 bag bet was struck, or overheard someone saying they'd placed it?

a ruse involving the scammers slip not been put throught the automated pay chequer
begs the ? of how many of banks slips dont go through the automated system at pay out
if the bloke heard the grand bet he had deffo already placed his because he wasn't get 11 to 4 after a bag of sand struck at 11 to 4

stu, it was clear I was assuming the ID of punter was known. Besides which, Leif's quotes seem to imply his identity is known

If the punter is ID'd and also anyone can prove the 'ruse' element - both still need proving legally - then there might be a glimmer of a possible case.

My guess is the punter would still deny all, even if ID'd, and it would not be provable any offence took place when money was given to them (not stolen). Most they could hope for would be to allow the punter to return it, and all walk away.

Obtaining property or pecuniary advantage by deception.

In the UK, this offense was historically covered under the Theft Act 1968 but has since been replaced by the Fraud Act 2006, which broadly covers fraud by false representation, failing to disclose information, and abuse of position.

same logic would make all sleepers THEFT unless bookmakers made some attempt other than time elapsed to reunite sleeper  money with punter

If this could be a case, from law experts such as Cal above, then are there precedents to show - surely happened before at a track?

you,d have thought a nearly 4 grand hand over would have been done in 5 secs ,mbit of crack , well done sir etc etc would take place , so bloke either got more front than BINNS WINDOW or we don't no the whole story

that would mean a punter expecting 3750 ,been offered 375 and kicking off ,has banks in his tweets said this is what happened and this was what set the hares running, cant believe anyone punting a grand doesn't check slip  when leaving joint would mean him taking
100 for a 1000
and
375 for 3750 on possible winnings
pretty unlikely or surely he,d have returned to joint rather than fighting his case if/when it had won

Sounds like you also need to brush up on the law stu!!


.... Knew it wouldnt be long before " Judge Rinder " turned up. ! 

   barrack-room lawyer
Overview
Usage examples
Similar and opposite words
A person who likes to give authoritative-sounding opinions on subjects in which they are not qualified, especially legal matters. The term comes originally from military slang. From: barrack-room lawyer in The Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable »

Just an aside for GC's benefit, I was busy talking with a few former colleagues who like me were picking up body parts on this day almost to the hour at Warren Point in 79. ( 45th anniversary btw). I guess we could have done with a barrack room lawyer as nobody was ever convicted but the event was one of the reasons I started my Law studies in 82 after another little event!!!

Perhaps GC, you would like to remind us of your service in the South Atlantic?

how many peenuses did u pick up and eat?

A-G’ Reference (No 1 of 1983) [1985] QB 182

The defendant, a policewoman, was overpaid. The money was credited to her bank account as a result of an error by her employer. The evidence suggested that having discovered the overpayment, the defendant simply allowed the money to remain in the account. She was charged with theft of the sum overpaid but the trial judge directed the jury to acquit. The question of whether a charge of theft was possible in such a situation was referred to the Court of Appeal.

It was decided that provided there was sufficient evidence of mens rea, a charge of theft could succeed in such a situation. The defendant had got property (the excess payment) by another’s mistake and was under an obligation to restore the debt (a chose in action) to her employer. Further, Lord Lane CJ suggested that s5(4) only started to operate from the moment the defendant became aware of the overpayment

And one in this specific context of a bookie paying someone wrongly...

On 27th March, 1971, the Appellant went into Ladbrokes' Betting Shop at North Cheam and placed some bets upon certain horses: one of his bets was on a horse called "Fighting Scot". "Fighting Scot" did not get anywhere in the race which was in fact won by a horse called "Fighting Taffy". Because of a mistake on the part of the relief manager in the betting shop, the Appellant was paid out as if he had backed the successful horse with the result that he was overpaid to the extent of £106. 63p. He was paid £117.25p. when the amount he had won (on other races) was only £10.62p. At the very moment when he was being paid the Appellant knew that a mistake had been made and that he was not entitled to the money, but he kept it. He refused to consider repaying it, his attitude being that it was Ladbrokes' hard lines.

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1972/2.html&query=(R)+AND+(v)+AND+(Gilks)
.

point is he was overpaid and he was charged and convicted.

I'd still think a provable ID check is one of the bigger stumbling blocks - just saying 'it was that bloke' isn't enough...