R v Graham (H K) ; R v Kansal ; R v Ali (Sajid) ; R v Marsh ; R v Graham (G A) ; R v Price ; R v Bramich
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Judgment Date | 25 October 1996 |
Date | 25 October 1996 |
Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Blofeld and Mr Justice Cresswell
Criminal law - offences of dishonesty - money transfers - anomaly in law
A glaring anomaly in the criminal law relating to dishonesty and mortgage frauds exposed by the House of Lords in R v PreddyWLR (The Times July 11; [1996] 3 WLR 255) resulted in the quashing of convictions of seven appellants and the substitution of verdicts in alternative offences in the cases of four of them.
The Court of Appeal, in a reserved judgment allowed the appeals of Mrs Hemamali Krishna Graham, a solicitor, of attempting to obtain property by deception; Mr Rupe Lal Kansal, on five counts of obtaining sums of money by deception, and of Mr Sajid Pasha Ali of attempting to steal a credit of £1,000,000 belonging to a bank. In each of those cases, the court determined that the conviction could not be regarded as safe, that no substitution of an alternative offence had any basis and that ordering of a retrial was not appropriate.
In each of the appeals of Terence Colin Marsh, Garry Allan Graham, Paul Graham Price and David Bramish, who were involved in different motor vehicle businesses, and were convicted on various counts of obtaining or attempting to obtain property by deception, the court quashed their convictions, held that there could be no question of substitution where an attempt had been charged but where a cheque in fact had been obtained the allegations in the particular counts impliedly included allegations of an offence contrary to section 20(2) of the Theft Act 1968 and convictions under section 20(2) were substituted.
Mr Ivan Krolick for H K Graham; Mr Andrew Radcliffe for the Crown.
Mr Ivan Krolick for Kansal; Mr William Coker, QC, for the Crown.
Mr Anthony Arlidge, QC and Miss Rosamund Horwood-Smart, QC, assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals, for Ali; Miss Jane Sullivan for the Crown.
Mr Richard Lissack, QC, who did not appear below and Mr James Counsell, assigned by the Registrar of Appeals, for Marsh, G A Graham, Price and Bramich; Mr Philip Mott, QC and Mr Tom Leeper for the Crown.
Mr Bruce Houlder, QC and Mr David Perry, for the prosecution.
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said that the applications and appeals had been listed and heard together because they raised a number of common questions prompted by the Preddy decision, which was concerned with section 15(1) of the 1968 Act.
In recent years those who dishonestly made false representations to lending institutions and thereby induced those institutions to make loans which they would not otherwise have made had been prosecuted under section 15(1). Many mortgage lenders had been victims of such misrepresentations, and in
such cases the offence had become known as mortgage fraud.
The Criminal Appeal Act 1995 replaced section 2(1) of the 1968 Act with a shorter and simpler provision: "Subject to the provisions of this Act...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
R v Forbes (Anthony Leroy)
...see R v. Brown [1991] Crim LR 368 and transcript, CACD, 18 December 1990; R v. Conway (1990) 91 Cr App R 143; R v. Graham [1994] Crim LR 212 and transcript, CACD, 17 August 1993. In R v. Brown (transcript, at page 7C) the court did not accept a submission that if there was a satisfactory s......
-
Tido v R
...explained, this kind of evidence was undesirable in principle and the jury would require to approach it with great care: R v Graham [1994] Crim LR 212 and Williams (Noel) v The Queen [1997] 1 WLR 18 In Pipersburgh and Robateau v The Queen [2008] UKPC 11 the Board re-affirmed (in para 10) ......
-
R v Gill (Sewa Singh); R v Gill (Paramjit Singh)
...judge should explain the significance of the breach to the jury, as it may go to the weight they attach to the evidence (see R v Graham [1994] Crim LR 212 and R v Quinn…" [1995] 1 Cr App Rep 480. 42 The opinion stated by Lord Hutton in paragraph 35 suggests that reliance upon the truth of ......
-
Anderson (Ovando) v R
...... should the parade prove inconclusive R V Graham (1994) Crim. Law R 212 C.A. The right to hold ......