Director of Public Prosecutions v Vicky Patterson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Sir Brian Leveson P,Mrs Justice McGowan |
| Judgment Date | 02 November 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWHC 2820 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/2418/2017 |
| Date | 02 November 2017 |
[2017] EWHC 2820 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
THE RT. HON. Sir Brian Leveson
(President of the Queen's Bench Division)
Mrs Justice McGowan DBE
CO/2418/2017
APPEARANCES
Mr S Heptonstall (of the Crown Prosecution Service, London) for the Appellant
THE RESPONDENT did not attend and was not represented.
This is an appeal by way of case stated from a decision dated 27 February 2017 of the magistrates sitting in Great Yarmouth dismissing, on the basis that there was no case to answer, two charges of theft, each of £140, on 27 February 2016 and 4 March 2016 respectively brought against Vicky Patterson, the respondent. The question posed for this court is whether they were correct so to find.
The facts are set out in the case. In short, from August 2015, the respondent worked for Simply Holidays Ltd as a cleaner. That company owned property including two caravans at Beach Holiday Park, Kessingland, in Suffolk. Within the first couple of weeks of her employment the respondent was handed £500 in cash for the rent, and in communications on Facebook she was asked by the managing director of the company, Samuel Burton, whether he was meant to have sent her his bank details.
In a reply to him, dated 15 August, she explained that she had taken her children to a local park, and that the money had been lost or stolen. She stated that she had also lost her phone. She continued working for the company at a reduced rate to repay the £500 but made it clear in a message that she did not want the responsibility of handling money. It was then agreed that in future she would not receive cash payments from tenants.
In March 2016 the Arkle family was renting a property from the company. Payment was to have been made by card over the telephone for two weeks at £140 a week. No payment was received by the company, and Mr Burton checked with the respondent to see if payment had been made to her. He left various messages with no initial response.
On 13 March, however, he received what he described as a long-winded message in which the respondent said, “If you send me some kind of account I will pay weekly”. Mr Burton took this to be an admission that she had received the money, and later messages from the respondent repeated the request for an account number to repay the money.
Mr Burton did not immediately respond on the basis that he had already provided the information, but in evidence accepted that he may have been wrong about that. He also said that the respondent did not categorically confirm that she had taken the money, but rather had avoided the question. At the end of an exchange of messages on 13 March, he said, “If you didn't take it, that's fine. It's not your problem.” He continued to offer her work up to the end of the year.
Not surprisingly, Mr Burton was under pressure from the owner of the property for the rent and was given 24 hours to sort out the payment or, alternatively, to involve the police. The respondent invited him to call the police but Mr Burton thought that this was a hollow threat as she tried to goad him. He gave evidence that he had doubts about whether the respondent was dishonest because she never admitted that she had received the money and he did not know whether it had been lost or stolen. A further message on the same day was ambiguous and, as to the money, simply said, “I haven't got it for sure”.
The magistrates concluded that there was no definite answer in that message and it was unclear whether or not she was saying she had had the money. When interviewed by the police, however, the respondent admitted that she had received the money and had intended to pay it into Mr Burton's account. She said that she had placed it in her rucksack but when she went to retrieve it, the money was missing. She had lost it but was in the process of paying it back.
That is not the entirety of the material on this aspect of the case because the case stated includes reference to the Preparation for Effective Trial form, in which it was admitted that the money had been given to the respondent, the issue at trial being identified in terms:
“No dishonesty. The [respondent] took the money in good faith and intended to pay the money back to Sam Burton. Her partner spent the money, believing it was joint money.”
I ought to add, as is clear from the case, that Mrs Kyra Arkle was due to appear in the trial but did not attend, so that the case proceeded without her evidence.
On behalf of the respondent, at the close of the prosecution case it was argued that there was no case to answer on the basis that the prosecution had failed to establish...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yolanda Shakilla Cleveland v The Government of the United States of America
...DCCheng v Government of the United States of America [2014] EWHC 4091 (Admin), DCDirector of Public Prosecutions v Patterson [2017] EWHC 2820 (Admin); [2018] 1 Cr App R 28, DCDudko v Government of the Russian Federation [2010] EWHC 1125 (Admin), DCEktor v National Public Prosecutor of Holla......
-
R v Peter Hunter
...is charged an “ Ivey” direction must be given to the jury: Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd [2017] UKSC 67; and DPP v Patterson [2017] EWHC 2820 (Admin). This was set out in the judge's directions and there is no issue arising on this appeal about it. Conclusion: An intention to deceive? 1......
-
David Barton v The Queen
...route to arriving at the same conclusion was proposed by Sir Brian Leveson P in Director of Public Prosecutions v Patterson [2017] EWHC 2820 (Admin); [2018] 1 Cr. App. R. 28, a decision of the High Court. Having quoted Lord Hughes's judgment at [74] he said: “16. These observations … were ......
-
R v Sean Patrick Murray Henderson
...Ghosh was disapproved, albeit in a civil case, by the strong dicta of the Supreme Court in Ivey. Furthermore, in DPP v Patterson [2017] EWHC 2820 (Admin), in a judgment of the Divisional Court delivered just over a fortnight ago on 2 nd November 2017 by Sir Brian Leveson PQBD, it was said a......
-
Experts and pretenders: Examining possible responses to misconduct by experts in criminal trials in England and Wales
...Section 2(1)(b)(i) and (ii).102. Section 2(3)(a) and (b).103. Section 2(4).104. [2017] UKSC 67.105. [1982] EWCA Crim 2.106. [2017] EWHC 2820 (Admin).107. DPP vPatterson at [16].108. [2011] EWCA Crim 1130 at [6].198 The International Journal of Evidence & Proof Section 19A, in conjunction wi......
-
The New Test for Dishonesty in Criminal Law—Lessons From the Courts of Equity?
...134 LQR 198, 199–200.103. K Laird, ‘Dishonesty: Ivey v Genting Casinos UK Ltd (t/a Crockfords Club.)’ (2018) 5 Crim LR 395, 397.104. [2017] EWHC 2820 (Admin).44 The Journal of Criminal Law [g]iven the terms of the unanimous observations of the Supreme Court expressed by Lord Hughes, who doe......
-
Uprooting the Invasive Ivey: Reversing the Effects of Ivey v Genting Casinos Ltd on the Definition of Dishonest Appropriation in the English Law of Theft
...the reconstructed test was strictly obiter in Ivey v Genting Casinos Ltd , in the later Court of Appeal case of DPP v Patterson [2017] EWHC 2820 (Admin), Sir Brian Leveson stated that this is the test that should be applied to subsequent criminal cases. 3 [2017] UKSC 67, [2018] AC 391. 4 Gr......
-
Clarifying the Applicable Test for Dishonesty and Modifying Stare Decisis, but Otherwise a Missed Opportunity: R v Barton; R v Booth [2020] EWCA Crim 575
...affirmation would be undertaken.Soon after Ivey, the Divisional Court took the opportunity to review dishonesty. In DPP v Patterson[2017] EWHC 2820 (Admin), a case concerning two counts of theft, Sir Brian Leveson P discussed thestatement of Lord Hughes in Ivey. His Lordship acknowledged th......