R v Duru
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE MEGAW |
| Judgment Date | 07 August 1973 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1973] EWCA Crim J0807-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 1374/A/73 No. 1789/A/73 |
| Date | 07 August 1973 |
[1973] EWCA Crim J0807-1
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Megaw
Mr. Justice Bridge
and
Mr. Justice Kilner Brown
No. 1374/A/73
No. 1375/A/73
No. 1789/A/73
MR. C.F. FLETCHER-COOKE, Q.C., and MR. S. QADRI appeared on behalf of the Appellants Duru and Asghar.
MR. B. BARKER appeared on behalf of the Applicant Khan.
MR. D. SPENCER appeared on behalf of the Crown.
On the 26th February of this year at the Central Criminal Court the Applicant Yaseen Rasool Khan, who is concerned before this Court with sentence only, and the two Appellants Mohammed Mian Asghar and Ignatius Chima Duru were convicted on their plea of guilty to certain counts of an indictment.
The Applicant Khan pleaded guilty on arraignment to three counts of obtaining property by deception. They were Counts 1, 2 and 5 of the indictment. The Appellant Duru, having on arraignment pleaded not guilty to the counts in the indictment with which he was concerned, on the 7th March, after legal argument and submissions, changed his plea to a plea of guilty to obtaining property by deception (that was Count 3) and to Count 6 of corruptly receiving a reward. At the same time the Appellant Asghar also changed his original plea of not guilty to a plea of guilty to two counts of obtaining property by deception. Those were Counts 3 and 4.
We are concerned at the moment with the appeals against conviction by the Appellants Duru and Asghar. They appeal by virtue of certificates given by the learned trial Judge. The certificates relate to matters which were dealt with in submissions made on behalf of Duru and Asghar at the close of the prosecution case.
To complete the history of the proceedings, on the pleas of guilty on the 13th March of this year each of the three, Duru, Asghar and Khan, were sentenced to a total of eighteen months' imprisonment concurrent on each of the counts to which they had respectively pleaded guilty.
The essence of the offences which resulted in convictions can be quite briefly stated though the facts were very elaborate and had to be gone into at very considerable length at the trial. The essence of the matter is that Duru was employed by the Greater London Council, and his work, the details of which do not matter, involved his dealing with applications for mortgages submitted by prospective purchasers of houses who in certain circumstances were entitled to apply for, and, if approved, to be granted mortgages in respect of the houses that they were going to purchase. The Council had certain rules and regulations and standards which they applied in deciding whether or not to grant mortgages to applicants and, if so, in what amount. Amongst other matters which not unnaturally they took into account was the earnings of the applicant and, if the applicant was married, those of his wife if she was at work in order to see what the household income was.
In respect of the counts to which there were pleas of guilty the facts were that in collaboration between Duru, Asghar and Khan false applications had been submitted, that is to say applications which, to the knowledge of each of the applicants and those participating (so far as the prospective counts to which they pleaded guilty are concerned), contained particulars of income of the applicant or the applicant's wife which were untrue. On the basis of those applications, which were dealt with by the Appellant Duru with knowledge of the falsity, the mortgages were granted. Cheques were sent to solicitors who acted both for the Greater London Council and the respective applicants. Those cheques in due course were cashed and on completion the monies represented by those cheques were paid as the mortgage monies to the persons who thereupon became mortgagors. There is no longer any issue as to the dishonesty of the Appellants.
Perhaps it is desirable to give as an example of what happened the facts relating to one of the counts, and for this purpose it will be sufficient to take Count 3, which is the count to which Duru and Asghar ultimately pleaded guilty.
The count as set out in the indictment was this: "The third count charges you each and all with the like offence" that is to say the offence of obtaining property by deception "the particulars being that you each and all, on the 13th day of April, 1971, within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court, dishonestly obtained from the Greater London Council a cheque for £6,002.50 by deception, namely by false representations in employers income enquiry letters that Hamid Ali was employed by Universal Construction Company as a Foreman from the 12th day of January, 1970, at a basic pay of £35 per week and overtime, and that Akbari Gegum Ali was employed by Universal Construction Company as a Copy Typist from the 15th day of June, 1970, at a basic pay of £12 per week, with the intention of permanently depriving the said Council of the said property."
As I should have mentioned earlier, a part of the deception, and the relevant part in respect of this count, was the purported certification by the company supposed to be the employer of the applicant of the earnings of the applicant and, where it arose, of the applicant's wife.
The facts in relation to Count 3 briefly were these. In January 1972 a man called Hamid Ali submitted a mortgage application. That purported to show that he was a foreman employed by a company called Universal Construction Company and that he earned £35 a week with £14 overtime. The application also showed that his wife was earning £12 a week as a typist. The income inquiry letter, that is the letter which purported to come from the employers, showed that Hamid Ali's earnings were £35 a week and £8 overtime, that is a little less overtime than the original application. The letter which related to his wife purported to show that she was earning £12 a week basic pay.
In his evidence Hamid Ali said that those were false. At the material time he was out of work, having been last employed in October 1970 at £20 a week. Moreover his wife had never worked as a typist. The address which was given for the purported employer of both husband and wife was an address 3 High View Gardens, which was an address belonging to a friend of the Applicant Khan.
Ali said that he submitted two applications. The first fell through, but the second was granted. During the first application he said he received help from Asghar to whom he had paid £50 by cheque and to Khan to whom he paid £20 for obtaining a reference from the employers. Asghar also helped with the second application and said that Khan once again would arrange the references. There was some delay, so he telephoned Asghar and he introduced him to the Appellant Duru. He met Duru later at the Greater London Council offices and paid Duru £20 in exchange for a letter which he, Ali, handed to his solicitor.
The mortgage was dealt with by his solicitors Walford & Co., against whom of course there is no breath of suspicion of any sort in connection with these matters. The senior managing clerk of that firm gave evidence that he acted both for Ali and the Greater London Council on the question of the mortgage. The mortgage cheque for £6,002.50 was dated 13th April, 1971. It was duly presented by the solicitors and paid and the mortgage money was paid to Hamid Ali.
When Asghar was seen by the Police he admitted receiving money from Ali and filling in the false employment references, which he said he handed to Duru.
Duru in a statement which he made to the Police said "I didn't know that Asghar was going to write false details about earnings and employers on the application forms. The only exception was the Ali application when I filled the enquiry letters in and took them by hand to Asghar. He completed the bottom half of the forms for the employer and gave them back to me. I took them back to the G.L.C. and used one of my stamps to give it some official character. I knew the details on the Ali references were false, but not the others."
Then Khan in his interview with the Police also made a statement with which we are not concerned at the moment.
That is the general nature of these offences.
What is said by way of appeal against the convictions on those pleas of guilty? Of course, if the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Preddy
...contemplated by this Act of Parliament (7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 53)." 50Unfortunately this authority does not appear to have been cited in Reg. v. Duru [1974] 1 W.L.R. 2. There the defendants were involved in mortgage frauds perpetrated on a local authority. The advances were made by chequ......
-
R v Kohn
...provisions of section 6(1), which I have already read, do not in those circumstances bite. He submits that the decision of this Court in R. v. Duru (1973) 3 All E.R. 715 does not apply, because that case was dealing with a different section of the Theft Act, namely section 15. Furthermore i......
-
R v Downes
...that is to say the piece of paper which constitutes the voucher. 14 For the Crown reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in R. v. Duru (1974) 1 W.L.R. 2, and on section 6(1) of the Theft Act 1968. 15 In Duru the defendant of that name together with co-defendants managed to obtain......
-
R v Governor of Pentonville Prison, ex parte Osman
...to rely on should this case go higher. What we have in mind is the passage from the judgment delivered by Megaw L.J. in Reg. v. DuruWLR [1974] 1 W.L.R. 2, 8: ‘In the view of this court there can be no doubt that the intention of both of these defendants, as would necessarily have been found......
-
Appraisal of Nigerian Advance Fee Fraud Legislation 1995
...and therefore helping or enabling another person to obtain would suffice. See s. l(l)(a and b) of the Decree and English case of Duru (1974) 1 WLR 2, (1973) 3 ALL ER 715. (24) Property includes assets, monetary instruments, instrumentalities used in the offence of false pretence. See s. 7(5......