R v. Campbell

1/10/2016
Delivery|WestlawIndia
Westlaw India Delivery Summary

Requestmadeby:
IPUSERNOVUS
Requestmadeon:
Sunday,10January,2016at20:48IST
ClientID:
inhnlu1
ContentType
UKCases
Title:
R.vCampbell(MarySylvia)
Deliveryselection:
CurrentDocument
Numberofdocumentsdelivered:
2016ThomsonReutersSouthAsiaPrivateLimited
https://login.westlawindia.com/maf/wlin/app/delivery?&summary=true&fontSize=11pt&docguid=I39AC5130E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&title=&status=true...
1/6
1/10/2016
*47 R. v Mary Sylvia Campbell

CourtofAppeal
24July1984
(1985) 80 Cr. App. R. 47

LordJusticeAckner,Mr.JusticeBristowandMr.JusticePopplewell
July24,1984
ForgeryMaking a False InstrumentFalse Endorsement on ChequeWhether
Intention to Prejudice Recipient of InstrumentForgery and Counterfeiting Act
1981(c.45),ss.1,10(1)(c).
By section 1 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981: A person is guilty of
forgeryifhemakesafalseinstrument,withtheintentionthatheoranothershall
useittoinducesomebodytoacceptitasgenuine,andbyreasonofsoaccepting
ittodoornottodosomeacttohisownoranyotherperson'sprejudice.
By section 10(1): for the purposes of this Part of this Act an act or omission
intendedtobeinducedistoaperson'sprejudiceif,andonlyif,itisonewhichifit
occurs (c) will be the result of his having accepted a false instrument as
genuineinconnectionwithhisperformanceofanyduty.
Theappellantwasgivenachequebyafriendwhichhadbeenmadeouttoathird
party. She indorsed the cheque to herself by writing the payee's name with her
nameontheback.Shepaidthechequeintoheraccountand,whenitwascleared,
withdrewtheamountincashandgaveittothefriend.Shepleadednotguiltyto
forgery contrary to section 1 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 in that
sheforgedthechequewiththeintentionitshouldbeacceptedbythebankand
with the intention that another person should thereby be prejudiced. The judge
ruled on the facts that she had no defence, whereupon the appellant on re
arraignmentpleadedguilty.Onappealagainstthejudge'sruling,whileconceding
thatthefirstelementofthesection1offencehadbeensatisfiedbytheappellant
2/6
1/10/2016
makingafalseinstrument,thesecondelementwasnotsatisfiedinthatthebank
had not been induced by its acceptance of the cheque to act to its own and
another'sprejudice.
Held,thatundersection10(1)(c)oftheForgeryandCounterfeitingAct1981,the
appellant's act was to the bank's prejudice in that it resulted in the bank
accepting a false instrument which it was not part of the bank's duty to honour,
for had the bank known of the true status of the document they would have
whollyrejectedit.Accordingly,bothelementsoftheoffencehadbeenestablished
andtheappealwouldbedismissed.
[For sections 1 and 10 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, see Archbold
(41sted.),paras.19121,129.]
Appealagainstconviction.
OnAugust10,1983,intheCrownCourtatKnightsbridge(JudgeSirHaroldCassel,
Bt.,Q.C.)theappellantpleadedguiltyonrearraignmenttoforgery(count*483)
and since she was in charge of the jury the judge directed a formal verdict of
guiltyandsentencedhertoafineof20oroneday'simprisonmentindefault.
Thefollowingfactsaretakenfromthejudgment.
The facts are very simple and they were not essentially in dispute. About March
30,1982,theappellantcameintopossessionofachequefor5,363.67madeout
ontheaccountofBoleynCarSalesLtd.andpayabletoG.N.Croydon.Thischeque
wasprovidedtoherbyaplausibleladycalledMrs.Vincent,whowasemployedby
Boleyn Car Sales Ltd., and who told her friend, the appellant, that she had
purchasedacarfromthecompany,haddecidedthatitwasnotwhatshewanted
andtheonlywayinwhichshecouldgethermoneybackfromthecompanywasif
thechequewasmadeouttoafictitiousnameandwasthennegotiatedthrougha
banking account. The appellant then obligingly endorsed the cheque with the
fictitiousnameG.N.Croydon,followingthatnamewithherownnameandbank
account number. She paid the cheque into her bank account. Within a day she
withdrewtheselfsamesumincashandpaiditovertothenodoubtdelightedMrs.
Vincent.Sheexplainedtothepolice,whenshewasasked,whatherpartwasin
3/6
1/10/2016
thecaseandtheprosecutionacceptedthosefacts.
Sheappealedonthegroundsthatthetrialjudgeerredinruling(i)thatdishonesty
was no longer a necessary element in the offence of forgery, and (ii) that there
was an intention by the appellant to do some act to another's prejudice. For
although prejudice was created by her act of forgery there was no intention to
causetemporaryorpermanentloss.
James Tabor (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the appellant.
TudorOwenfortheCrown.
AcknerL.J.:
On August 10, 1983, in the Crown Court at Knightsbridge the appellant pleaded
guiltyonrearraignmenttoforgery(count3).Asaresultshewassentencedtoa
fine of 20 or one day's imprisonment in default. She had originally pleaded not
guiltytothiscount,butasaresultofthelearnedjudgeindicatingtocounselthat
heconsideredshehadnodefenceinlaw,thepleawasaltered.Theappealcomes
beforeusbecauseitissubmittedthatthejudgewaswrongintakingtheviewthat
inlawtherewasnodefence.
ThelearnedLordJusticestatedthefactsandcontinued:
Theoffenceofforgeryundersection1oftheForgeryandCounterfeitingAct1981
arises if [a person] makes a false instrument, with the intention that he or
anothershalluseittoinducesomebodytoacceptitasgenuine,andbyreasonof
so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person's
prejudice. It is common ground that the intention which the statute requires
contains two ingredients. One is the intention that the false instrument shall be
usedtoinducesomebodytoacceptitasgenuineandtheotheristheintentionto
inducesomebodybyreasonofsoacceptingittodoornottodosomeacttohis
own or any other person's prejudice. It is common ground, as it has to be on
thesefacts,thattheappellantdidmakeafalseinstrumentbecausesheendorsed
thefictitiousnameonthebackofthechequetherebygivingtheimpressionthat
thechequehadbeenproperlymadeouttoG.N.Croydon,andthatG.N.Croydon
had endorsed the cheque over to her. It is conceded that she did that with the
4/6
1/10/2016
intention to induce somebodythat is the bankto accept it as genuine. So the

firstoftheingredientsoftheintentionwasproperlymadeoutbytheprosecution.
Infactitwasnotinissue.
*49
That which is in issue is whether the prosecution on the facts which we have
recountedhaveestablishedthesecondingredient,namelythattheintentionwas
toinducesomebodybyreasonofsoacceptingthatfalsedocumenttodosomeact
tohisownoranyotherperson'sprejudice.Againsofarasthelawisconcernedit
is common ground that section 10 of the Act exhaustively defines induce and
prejudice for the purpose of this second ingredient. It is a lengthy section. We
need only read that part of the section which relates to the facts of this case.
Subsection (1): Subject to subsections (2) and (4) below, for the purposes of
this Part of this Act an act or omission intended to be induced is to a person's
prejudiceif,andonlyif,itisonewhich,ifitoccurs(c)willbetheresultofhis
having accepted a false instrument as genuine in connection with his
performanceofanyduty.
Itiscommongroundthatinthecontextofthiscasehismeansthebank,soit
will read: will be the result of the bank having accepted a false instrument as
genuineinconnectionwiththebank'sperformanceofanyduty.
Mr.Taborseekstorelybeforeus,thoughhedidnotbeforethelearnedjudge,on
subsection(2).Againwereadonlythosewordsthatcanrelatetothiscase:An
actwhichapersonhasanenforceabledutytodoshallbedisregardedforthe
purposes of this Part of this Act. In our judgment, that subsection provides no
assistancetotheappellantforthissimplereason,thatitwasthebank'sdutyto
payoutonlyonavalidinstrumentanditiscommongroundinthiscasethatthat
which was presented to the bank, and which was accepted by the bank, was a
false instrument which it was not part of the bank's duty to honour. On the
contrary, had the bank known of the true status of that document, they would
have wholly rejected it. In these circumstances it seems plain to us that the
offencewasproperlyestablished.Itwouldberemarkableifsuchasituationwas
notcoveredonewayoranotherbythisfarembracing,recentpieceoflegislation.
5/6
1/10/2016
Accordinglytheappealagainstconvictionisdismissed.
Representation
Solicitors:Solicitor,MetropolitanPolice,fortheCrown.
Appealdismissed.
2016ThomsonReutersSouthAsiaPrivateLimited
2016Sweet&Maxwell
6/6

R v. Campbell

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

R v. Campbell

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1/10/2016

Westlaw India Delivery Summary

*47 R. v Mary Sylvia Campbell

(1985) 80 Cr. App. R. 47

intention to induce somebodythat is the bankto accept it as genuine. So the

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen