House of Lords
| Published date | 01 January 1977 |
| Date | 01 January 1977 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201837704100106 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
House
of
Lords
Comments on Cases
PECUNIARY
ADVANTAGE
OBTAINED
BY
CHEQUE
CARD
Metropolitan Police Commissioner v. Charles
The
appeal
in this case (1976,3 W.L.R. 431; 3All E.R. 112) afforded
the
House
of
Lords the first
opportunity
to consider the implications in
the criminal law of the increasing use of
cheque
cards.
The
appellant
opened
a
bank
account
and
was
granted
an overdraft of£100.
He
was
given a
cheque
card
with which he could
draw
any
cheque
not
exceed-
ing £30, which the
bank
undertook
to
honour
provided the conditions
set
out
on the
back
of
the
card
weresatisfied. In the course
ofa
night
the
appellant
drew
twenty-five cheques
of
£30 each,
at
atime at which he
knew his
account
was
overdrawn
considerably beyond the agreed limit.
In respect of two of these cheques, he was convicted of dishonestly
obtaining
for
himself
a
pecuniary
advantage
contrary
to s.16( 1)
of
the
Theft
Act, 1968, the
pecuniary
advantage
alleged being the increased
borrowing
by
way
of overdraft.
The
only
issue on
appeal
was
whether
the
pecuniary
advantage
had
been
obtained
by deception,
namely
by
deliberately or recklessly
representing
that
he was entitled or
authorised
to use the
cheque
card
when
issuing the cheques in question.
The
gist of the
appellant's
argument
was
that
Pollock].
correctly
stated
the
law
when
he said, in R. v. Hazleton (L.R. 2C.C.R. 134, 140),
"the
real
representation
made
is
that
the
cheque
will be
paid".
lt
was
the
appellant's
contention
that
this was the only
representation
made
and
that
in the
instant
case it was manifestly true, as is
demonstrated
by
the fact
that
in
due
course all the
appellant's
cheques were honoured.
The
House
of Lords held, however,
that,
if
one
looks at
the
totality
of
the
representations,
the defence's
argument
fails.
The
appellant
knew
that
if he
had
drawn
a
cheque
without
the
card
he would
not
have been
given the chips he received from the
gambling
club.
It
is the representa-
tion
made
by the
dra
wer's
prod
uction
of
the
card
that
he
has
the
bank's
authority
which estops the
bank
from refusing to
honour
the cheque.
Thus,
by
producing
the
card,
the
appellant
represented
that
he was
authorised
by the
bank
to show the
card
to the payee
and
so create a
contractual
relationship between the
bank
and
the payee. If
that
was
the
representation
made
by the
appellant,
it was false
and
it
must
have
been false to his kvowledge, for he knew
that
by the time he
drew
the
cheques which were the subject of his conviction his
account
was
considerably
overdrawn
and
that
he
had
not the
bank's
authority
to do
so.
lt
is
clear
from R. v. Kovacks (1974, 1
W.L.R.
370;
38j.C.L.
213)
that
it is
immaterial
that
the person deceived is
not
the person who suffers
46
To continue reading
Request your trial