PATRICK VINCENT McGINLEY CURR
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE,MR. JUSTICE FENTON ATKINSON |
| Judgment Date | 21 December 1966 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1966] EWCA Crim J1221-1 |
| Docket Number | No. 3046/66 |
| Court | Court of Criminal Appeal |
| Date | 21 December 1966 |
[1966] EWCA Crim J1221-1
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Parker)
Lord Justice Salmon
and
Mr. Justice Fenton Atkinson
No. 3046/66
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
MISS H.A. KERSHAW appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.
MR. J. HUGILL appeared as Counsel for the Crown.
Mr. Justice Fenton Atkinson will give the Judgment of the Court.
In September last atSalford Quarter Sessions this appellant was convicted on one count of attempting to obtain money by false pretences, four counts of obtaining money by false pretences, one count of soliciting the commission of an offence, and two counts of conspiring to commit an offence. He was sentenced by the Assistant Recorder to a total of 3 years imprisonment made up of 2 years concurrent on each of the four false pretence counts, 1 year concurrent on each of the other four counts but consecutive to the two years on the false pretences count, 3 years in all. He now appeals against conviction by leave of the single Judge.
The facts shortly were these, that he was in fact a trafficker in Family Allowance Books. His method was to approach some married women who had a large family of children and lend them money on the security of their Family Allowance Books. A woman would borrow from him, let us say £6, and would sign three of the vouchers in her Family Allowance Book to the value of, let us say, £9, and hand over the Book to him as security. He then had a team of women agents whom he sent out to cash the vouchers, and he would pocket the proceeds in repayment of the loans and thereafter return the books. He admitted quite freely in evidence that he had done, as he put it, 40 to 80 books a week, and he said in February 1966 he had between three and five women agents assisting him in this matter, and when he was arrested he had about 80 Family Allowance Books in his possession. He agreed quite frankly that he knew he was not legally entitled to receive these payments, and that it could be risky; in dealing with the husband of one of the women concerned he said: "When you're doing business like this, you should keep your big mouth shut". So it is quite plain that dealing with this man was highly objectionable, and the Assistant Recorder who tried the case clearly had very strong views about it; on two occasions in his summing-up he spoke of preying on these women with large families, and he finished up his direction to the Jury with words to this effect: "If you are getting interest at 800 per cent per annum it is not bad, is it? That is what the prosecution say here, that the whole system was corrupt", and the language there used was no whit too strong.
But the very nature of the case being bound to arouse strong prejudice in the mind of any right thinking Juror, for that reason it was all the more important to put the law on each count clearly to the Jury, and to make sure that the defence was clearly put before them.
To deal first with the false pretences counts, the false pretence alleged was the same in each of the counts; to take a typical one, on the fifth count: Particulars of offence that you on such and such a date with intent to defraud obtained from Her Majesty's Postmaster General the sum of £10.4s. in money, by falsely pretending that the same was being received for and for the use and benefit of Mrs. Stone, whereas it was being received for you and for your own use and benefit.
It appeared from the evidence that if Mrs. A. comes into the Post Office with Mrs. B's book and hands in that book with vouchers signed by Mrs. B, the Post Office officials will commonly cash that voucher, possibly assuming that the lady presenting it is in fact Mrs. B., but more probably assuming that the lady handing it in has Mrs. B's authority, and that the money is in fact for the use and benefit of Mrs. B. Mr. Kershaw has addressed to us a most able argument on behalf of this appellant; it is not disputed that the ladies who handed in the vouchers in this case represented by their action that the money was for the use and benefit of the signatory of the voucher in question, and there is no dispute that the Post Office parted with the money in these cases relying on a representation to that effect. But Mr. Kershaw says in this case or in those cases the representations were in fact true, that the money was being received by the appellant for the use and benefit of the ladies concerned in some of the counts – in one case it was a man with a War Pension Book – and it was put in this way. The ladies had borrowed, let us say, £6; they had agreed to repay £9, and this money which he was collecting from the Post Office was the means by which these ladies would pay off the debt that they owed, and in that sense it was for their use and benefit.
A submission of no case to answer on the false pretences counts was made on these lines at the end of the prosecution case, but the Assistant Recorder rejected that submission and said it was for the Jury to decide on the point raised. Mr. Hugill for the prosecution in dealing with that matter pointed to certain sections of the Family Allowance Act, 1945; he referred to Section 4 sub-section (1) of the Act: "Persons to whom allowances are to be paid….(a) in the case of a family of a man and his wife living together, to the wife".
Then there are other provisions for the case of husband and wife living apart and matters of that sort. Then by sub-section (2): "Sums to be paid on account of an allowance for the family of a man and his wife living together shall be receivable either by the man or by the wife".
Then he referred to Section 10 of the Act: "Allowances to be inalienable. (1) Every assignment of or charge on, and every agreement to assign or charge, an allowance or any part of an allowance or any sum to be paid on account of an allowance, shall be void". Mr. Hugill said rightly that in some, if not all of these cases, there was a purported assignment which was in fact void. He says further that this appellant was plainly carrying business as an unlicensed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- R v Jason Bansie and David Church and Mark Church and Rupert Stewart and Jason Jarvis and Peter Skerritt
-
Lewis-lashley v The State
...had not had an adequate reminder of the defence was a ground, if not the sole ground for quashing a conviction: See R. v. Curr (1966) 51 Cr. App. R. 113; R. v. Dolan (1996) 53 Cr. App. R. 556; R. v. Knightley (1971) 55 Cr. App. R. 390; R. v. Anderson [1971] 3 W.L.R. 939; R. v. Dolan (1975) ......
-
DPP v Andrew Armstrong
...the material which he had been invited to supply. 7 The magistrate was referred to the cases of R v Shaw [1994] Crim LR 365 and R v Curr [1968] 2 QB 944, (1967) 51 Cr App R 113. In explaining how he reached his conclusion he said: "(a) The police officer had made it clear in is evidence tha......
-
DPP v Andrew Armstrong
...the material which he had been invited to supply. 7 The magistrate was referred to the cases of R v Shaw [1994] Crim LR 365 and R v Curr [1968] 2 QB 944, (1967) 51 Cr App R 113. In explaining how he reached his conclusion he said: "(a) The police officer had made it clear in is evidence tha......
-
Table of Cases
...R. v. Cooper & Compton (1947) 2 All E.R. 701…….....................………….418, 424, 431, 434, 508 R. v. Curr (1968) 2 Q.B. 944; (1967) 1 All E.R. 478……....................................................………..438 R. v. Daubney v. Cooper (1929) 10 B & C. 237, 240………………................................