R v Beck (Brian)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE WATKINS |
| Judgment Date | 15 August 1984 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1984] EWCA Crim J0815-4 |
| Docket Number | No. 5588/C/83 |
| Date | 15 August 1984 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
[1984] EWCA Crim J0815-4
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Watkins
Mr. Justice Kenneth Jones
and
Sir John Thompson
No. 5588/C/83
MR. B. HYTNER Q.C. and MR. M. HUSSAIN appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR. J. PRICE Q.C. and MR. J. M. SHORROCK appeared on behalf of the Crown.
On 7th October 1983 at Manchester Crown Court before His Honour Judge Hardy the appellant was by jury convicted on three counts of procuring the execution of a valuable seourity by deception contrary to section 20(2) of the Theft Act 1968. He was sentenced to 18 months' Imprisonment on each count concurrent. Ho less than 428 similar offences were at his request taken into consideration.
He appeals against conviction upon a point of law. The learned trial judge granted a certificate for this purpose in the following terms: "The deception alleged in each count was not practised on the person who executed the valuable security as they then knew of its falsity but upon someone with whom their legal or commercial obligations were such that the jury could nevertheless decide it caused them to execute it".
The facts have in some measure a familiar modern ring about them. On 8th July 1981, 15 packets of substantial quantities of Barclays Bank Visa traveller's cheques were sent to branches of the Allied Irish Bank in Eire on behalf of Barclays Bank International Limited, Lombard Street, London, who are one of the issuers of traveller's cheques under the Visa International system. They were despatched through the post by their printers, Thomas De La Rue and Company. They were all stolen in the course of transmission, but by whom, where and how, we do not know.
Between 14th August and 8th September 1981 a very large number of the stolen traveller's cheques had been unlawfully cashed in the South of Prance in the names of Robert Young and R. Chew, 400 of which were presented to Barclays Bank International Limited, through normal banking channels in Prance and in this country, for payment. The value of the sterling cheques amounted altogether to £7,860.
All the cheques had been forged by the appellant, who was by this deception and by the use of false passports (a very large number of British Visitors' Passports had been stolen early in 1981) enabled to considerably enrich himself in a very short space of time.
One of the cheques (count 1) had been cashed in Nice on 24th July in the name of Robert Augustine Young. Another of them (count 2) had been cashed in Cannes on the following day in the name of R. Chew.
Although Barclays Bank International Limited were aware that all the cheques presented to them for payment were forgeries, they honoured them. They did this, so the jury were informed, because whilst they could not claim to be legally obliged to, they considered themselves liable to pay the agents and correspondents who had handled them, providing, in the case of a forged traveller's cheque, it was revealed upon enquiry that the person who had encashed it had acted prudently. There is no suggestion in any of the relevant transactions that persons had acted imprudently. A witness from the bank explained that liability in this way: "If we did not pay we would have all sorts of acceptability problems. Commercially, we have very little choice".
In the ordinary and lawful way of dealing, a traveller's cheque is purchased from Barclays Bank or one of its agents. At the time of purchase, to comply with the condition of sale, the purchaser must sign each cheque with his usual signature in the presence of a servant or agent of the seller. When the purchaser wishes to cash a cheque he must put his signature upon it once again in the space marked "counter signature" in the presence of the person asked to encash it at a bank or other appropriate place either here or abroad. What should happen then is described upon the back of each cheque thus: "When countersigned by the purchaser whose signature appears on the face in the presence of the person cashing the issuer will pay in the United Kingdom ten pounds sterling, elsewhere negotiable at current rates of exchange". When the money is paid to the purchaser the payer has received a good title to the traveller's cheque and will receive the value of it at some point as it is returned or when it is returned through normal banking channels to, if it is for example a Barclays Bank Visa sterling traveller's cheque, the head office, for this purpose, of Barclays Bank International Limited in Poole, Dorset.
On 22nd July 1981, in Cannes, goods to the value of 1, 000 French francs were purohased by the unlawful use of a Diners Club card (count 3). This had previously been stolen from the Mr, Robert Young previously mentioned when his home in England had been burgled. The card was used in this way on 28 separate occasions in the space of a week for the purpose of obtaining money and goods.
The evidence against the appellant consisted of fingerprints on the traveller's cheques, his handwriting upon them and his hand-writing upon bills rendered to Diners Club Ltd. (Diners Club). For his unavailing defence he relied upon an alibi which, by their verdicts, the jury obviously rejected. From the time when he was arrested in 1982 until after his convictions upon the indictment the appellant protested his innocence. Immediately following conviction he admitted that he had forged all the cheques and cashed them and also that he had used the Diners Club card of Mr. Young and had forged Mr. Young's signature on bills at stores and banks where he had obtained goods and money.
The Diners Club, when presented with bills from Diners Club (France), to where they had been sent by the holders of them, amounting to a total of £1,713, knew that Mr. Young's card has been stolen and used unlawfully. They claimed to be under a legally enforceable agreement to pay bills which have been incurred by the use of one of their stolen cards providing there has been by the trader compliance with their conditions. It is not said that any trader involved in the relevant transactions failed to thus comply.
The grounds of appeal are (1) no offence was committed by the appellant within the jurisdiction of the Crown Court; (2) the judge was wrong in law (a) in ruling that the final acceptance of a valuable security when it is a traveller's cheque is when it is paid, (b) in directing the jury that "procured" is only another word for "caused" and that it would be sufficient to bring the appellant's act within section 20(2) if it was a cause which had some effect on the actions of Barclays Bank International Limited and the Diners Club, and (3) the judge ought to have directed the jury that (a) "procure" meant"produce by endeavour" and (b) there was no evidence to establish that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Kassim
...advanced by Mr. Rowe Q.C. on behalf of the appellant, dismissed the appeal in the light of two previous decisions of that Court viz R. v. Beck (Brian) [1985] 1 W.L.R. 22 and R. v. Nanayakkara and others [1987] 1 W.L.R. 265. The Court certified the following point of law to be of general pub......
-
R v Manning
...over the offence: procuring the execution of a valuable security by deception, contrary to section 20(2) of the 1968 Act: R v BeckWLR((1985) 1 WLR 22) and R v NanayakkaraWLR ((1987) 1 WLR 265). They considered that those cases demonstrated that the last act or terminatory theory remained th......
-
Dilbert v R
... ... Jo. 373; 61 Cr. App. R. 118; [1975] RTR 473; [1975] Crim. L.R. 449, dictum of Lord Widgery, C.J. applied. (2) R. v. Beck, [1985] 1 W.L.R. 22; [1985] 1 All E.R. 571; (1984), 80 Cr. App. R. 355, dictum of Watkins, L.J. applied. (3) R. v. Sang, [1980] A.C. 402; ... ...
-
R Semiyu Gbenga Kassim and Another Colin William Young
...when Lloyds Bank made payment on them. 34 Section 20(2) has been the subject matter of two relevant decisions of this court. The first is R. v. Beck (1985) 1 W.L.R. 22 in which the judgment of the court was given by Watkins L.J. The second is R. v. Nanayakkara (1987) 1 W.L.R. 265 in which t......