R v Ferguson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE SALMON |
| Judgment Date | 11 June 1970 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1970] EWCA Crim J0611-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 2226/69 |
| Date | 11 June 1970 |
[1970] EWCA Crim J0611-1
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Salmon
Lord Justice Phillimore
and
Mr. Justice Nield
No. 2226/69
MR. M. SHERBORNE appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
In March of 1969 the Appellant was sentenced to fourteen years' imprisonment for armed robbery. He had been a member of an armed gang which attacked a Securicor van and managed to escape with a close-on £40,000. That armed robbery took place on the 24th April of 1968. Two days later the Appellant was arrested.
On the 7th May the Police went to Harrods, clothed with the necessary authority and had a safe deposit box there which was in the name of the Appellant opened. In that box there was £2,000. The Police properly took possession of that money as the suspected proceeds of theft.
It appeared from evidence at the trial that this safe deposit box had been in the Appellant's name since January of 1968 and that it had not been opened between then and the day on which he was arrested for armed robbery in respect of which he was convicted. It is, therefore, plain that none of the money found by the Police in the safe deposit box was the proceeds of that robbery.
At the conclusion of the proceedings at the Central Criminal Court an application was made that the £2,000, which had been in the safe deposit box, should be handed over to Securicor. That application was made under Section 28 of the Theft Act of 1968. The application succeeded. The Common Serjeant ordered that the money should be handed over to Securicor, and it is from that order that the Appellant now appeals.
It is necessary to read the relevant passages from Section 28 (1) of the Act of 1968. Subsection (1) insofar as it is material to the facts of this case reads as follows: "Where goods have been stolen, and a person is convicted of any offence with reference to the theft (whether or not the stealing is the gist of his offence), the court by or before which the offender is convicted may on the conviction exercise any of the following powers". I can omit the powers contained in Subparagraph (a) and (b) because they are not here relevant. Then Subparagraph (c): "on the application of a person who, if the first-mentioned goods were in the possession of the person convicted, would be entitled to recover them from him, the court may order that a sum not exceeding the value of those goods shall be paid to the applicant out of any money of the person convicted which was taken out of his possession on his apprehension".
The goods mentioned in Subparagraph (c) comprise any goods, including money, that were stolen by the theft of which the accused person was convicted.
It is apparent from what I have read of Subparagraph (c) that before the order is made under this Section, it has to be shown that the money in respect of which the order is made is the money of the convicted man and that it was taken out of his possession on his apprehension. In the view of this Court, the £2,000 was in the possession of the Appellant. It was in a safe deposit box which he had in his name at Harrods and of which he held the key. It is difficult to think of a clearer case of money being in the possession of a convicted man. It was taken out of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Church
...conclusion that the restitution order must be quashed. 26 It only remains to emphasize what has been stated in a case (so far unreported) of Ferguson. There the Court referred to Stamp -v- United Dominion Trust (1967 1 Queen's Bench 418) decided under the Larceny Act, and went on to state t......
-
Salim Shalabayev v JSC BTA Bank
...course for the Crown Court to take is to leave the relevant person interested to pursue his or her civil remedy in the civil courts: R v Ferguson (1970) 54 Cr App R 410 and R v Calcutt (1985) 7 Cr App R (S) 385. The English system of criminal justice does not itself confer any civil jurisdi......
-
Re Norris
...Crown Court to take is to leave the relevant person interested to pursue his or her civil remedy in the civil courts: R v Ferguson (1970) 54 Cr App R 410 and R v Calcutt (1985) 7 Cr App R (S) 385. The English system of criminal justice does not itself confer any civil jurisdiction upon the ......
-
Hksar v Lui Tsi Fai
...before them an issue must be decided in a way adverse to the accused: see R v Comerford and Healey, 49 Cr App R 77,CCA; R v Ferguson, 54 Cr App R 410, CA; R v Martin, 57 Cr App R 279, It has always been said that such circumstances would be rare. The mood has gradually changed, however, to ......
-
THE FINE ART OF FRAUD.
...Jailed in US for Defrauding Clients of up to $30m' Guardian, 31 July 2019: (131) Bridge, above, note 40, at 7-006. (132) R v. Ferguson [1970] 1 W.L.R. 1246 at (133) Stamp v. United Dominions Trust Ltd [1967] 1 Q.B. 418; R v. Church (1970) 53 Cr. App. R. 65. (134) Police (Property) Act 1897 ......
-
The Evidential Quality of Victim Personal Statements and Family Impact Statements
...orders should only be made in the plainest cases, civil courts being the correct forum for deciding disputed facts: R vFerguson (1970) 54 Cr App R 410 at 413–4. Similarly, in R v Calcutt and Varty (1985) 7 Cr App R (S) 385at 390 Woolf J said: ‘[T]he criminal courts are not the appropriate f......
-
Table of Cases
...R. v. Felix Onyinke & Ors. (1941) 7 W.A.C.A. 30………………………………....……………1699 Vol. 10 Pt. III Table of Cases [77] R. v. Ferguson (1970) 2 All E.R. 820. ……………………………………………...............…….1307 R. v. Frazer & Anor. (1957) 40 Cr. Appeal R. 160…………………………........………………..1724 R. v. Frost, 9 C. & P. 12......