Courts of Appeal
| DOI | 10.1177/002201838004400204 |
| Published date | 01 May 1980 |
| Date | 01 May 1980 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Courts
of
Appeal
Comments on
Cases
WHEN IS A DOCUMENT FALSE?
R.
v.
Hiscox
Section 23
of
the Finance Act 1971 provides that a contractor who
employs a sub-contractor is bound to subtract PAYE from the sub-
contractor's remuneration, unless the sub-contractor produces a
certificate of exemption (Form 714) from a tax inspector and receives
a receipt (Form 715). In R. v. Hiscox 68 Cr. App. R. 411, the manager
of a construction firm in charge of five foremen who themselveshired
employees and sub-contractors was convicted under s.6 of the Forgery
Act 1911 of uttering forged documents for the purpose of evading the
obligation to deduct tax under PA
YEo
The jury accepted the prose-
cution's evidence that documents had been uttered purporting to be
signed by one Wheeler and by one Salmon, although the defendant
knew that those persons had not signed or authorised the signing of
them. The defendant claimed at the trial and on appeal that the prose-
cution had not proved that those documents were forgeries. Under s.l
of the Forgery Act 1911, forgery is the making of a false document in
order that it may be used as genuine; and a document is false if the
whole or any material part purports to be made or authorised by a
person who has not made or authorised it.
The appellant's first submission was that it had not been established
that the certificates were false, because
it
had not been proved that the
persons whose signatures appeared on them had not signed or
authorised those signatures. In one case, the proof offered by the
prosecution that the person in question had not signed was a confession
by one of the foremen that he had himself signed the certificate. But,
said the defendant, that was not enough: the prosecution must go
further and prove that the person whose name appeared on the
72
To continue reading
Request your trial