R v Page (Note)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date26 January 1971
Judgment citation (vLex)[1971] EWCA Crim J0126-7
Docket NumberNo. 5896/A/70
Date26 January 1971
CourtCourt of Appeal (Criminal Division)

[1971] EWCA Crim J0126-7



Royal Courts of Justice


Lord Justice Phillimore

Mr. Justice Geoffrey Lane


Mr. Justice Cooke

No. 5896/A/70

Gregory Arthur Page

MR. R.J. SEABROOK appeared on behalf of the Appellant.

MR. A.S. HACKINGappeared on behalf of the Crown.


This Appellant appeared at East Sussex Quarter Sessions in October last and he was convicted of one count of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception and of three counts of obtaining property by deception, and was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment concurrent on each count. He appeals against his conviction by leave of the single Judge and he also applies for leave to appeal against sentence.


This is, in fact, obviously a very dishonest young man and Mr. Seabrook's argument has not been hampered by any merits. What happened was this that the Appellant apparently opened a bank account and it was only in funds to the extent of a little over £13 on Maundy Thursday. He had actually opened it on the 10th March. On the 25th March, which was the Wednesday before Easter, he telephoned to the Bank Manager and got authority to cash two cheques, one for £30 and one for £40, and he proceeded to draw those cheques, but they were not presented until some days later. The result, of course, of drawing those cheques was that as and when they were presented the amount by which the account was in credit was dissipated.


However, on the following day, the 26th, the Maundy Thursday, the Appellant went into a car hire firm and he hired a car, and that involved two things. He had to pay for the hire and so he drew a cheque for £23 12s. 6d. in favour of the firm, Self Drive Cars, and he also had to make a deposit against the possibility of damage and so he drew a cheque for £15.


Those cheques have clearly been altered at some stage, but when is by no means clear. The one for £23 12s. 6d. as originally drawn would appear to be dated 26/4; that would be April 1970. But at some stage the 4 was struck out and "3" substituted and what appear to be the Appellant's initials. The other cheque appears to be dated 26, and then there is a figure which might be a 6 or might be a 4, and then subsequently that figure not having been clearly struck out there was written after it "3rd".


The Appellant did not tell the lady at the car hire firm that he had post dated these cheques if he had, and she did not realise that they were other than drawn for immediate presentment.


The first, that is the cheque for £23 odd, was presented three times and it was marked successively "post dated", "please represent" and "refer to drawer". Whether" at any such stage the alterations to which I have referred were made the Court is not aware. The second cheque was presented twice. On the first occasion it was marked "please represent" and on the second "refer to drawer". Again, when was the alteration made, when it was originally drawn or on such subsequent occasion?


On the same day the Appellant went to a shop where he was known, Varsity Cleaners, and asked the shopkeeper to cash a cheque for him for £20 since the bank had closed, and the woman in charge did so and he drew up this cheque. On this occasion it is quite clearly post dated. He wrote 26/4-/70 and he certainly did not tell the lady to whom he handed the cheque that it was post dated and she did not observe it. When presented it was marked "refer to drawer".


Then coming to the third count, again on the same day he went to yet another shop, Messrs. Fowkes Brothers, where he was known and he did exactly the same thing. He asked them to cash in a cheque for £20 on the grounds that the bank was closed and he drew it up 26/4/70, so it was post dated by a month. That ended his activities on Maundy Thursday.


On the Saturday he entered a shop called Cyril Savage with a girlfriend and purchased a jacket and a pair of jeans, and paid by cheque. This is even more remarkable because he appears to have dated this 28 and then he put a 4 and then he put Mar. standing for March and then 1970. The shopkeeper observed the 4 which indeed was written on at the time and not subsequently. At all events this cheque when presented was marked "refer to drawer".


None of these cheques have ever been met. It is quite plain that the Appellant fully appreciated his position because he wrote a letter to his Bank Manager following the conversation about the two cheques which he had leave to draw and present, and in that he said "I wish to apologise for the unseemly state of my bank account. It seems that my partner and the resources of our business have both disappeared. I have certain other cheques outstanding post dated 26th and 28th of next month". That may, I suppose, refer to these cheques the subject of the charges. "I shall settle my present overdraft and these outstanding cheques with you at the earliest possible moment, not later than the 20th of next month. I wish once again to apologise for this most unfortunate incident".


He did not succeed in settling his overdraft, nor the cheques, and he was seen by a Police Officer on the 13th June. He was asked first of all about the jacket and the trousers and he said "… I didn't know I had done anything wrong. Since when has it been an offence for a cheque to bounce?". The Officer said "It's not a case of one cheque, is it? You have passed more than one". He replied "I realise that, it's about £100, but I thought it would be covered". Asked how he thought it would be covered, he said "I had this business in London and a friend was going to invest in it with me. He told me he would deposit well over £100, but he has let me down". Then he was asked "Who is this friend?" and his reply was "I can't think of his name at the moment". The Officer said "Assuming that this friend does exist, did you check with your bank to ensure that you had money in your account, because my information is that you rang the bank to ask if you could cash a cheque for £40 and then promptly cashed another one for £30 which put you well in the red". The Appellant answered "No I didn't check it, because he" that was the friend "promised to pay the money in".


The Appellant subsequently told the Police that he was going to plead guilty to all the offences and he did when he came before the Justices, but when the Court was listening to the plea put forward by the Appellant's solicitor, the Magistrates' clerk took the view that what was being said in mitigation amounted to a defence, so the case after that proceeded as a plea of not guilty.


There was one further interview with the Police which is perhaps just worth recording briefly. According to the Officer, on the 10th July he said to the Appellant "The first cheque I want to speak about is the one for £15 which you paid to the self drive hire people. This was in respect of insurance". The answer to that was "That one has been cancelled and it wasn't for insurance. It was a cheque I left behind as a deposit toward any damage, when I would have to pay the first £15". The Officer said "The fact remains that if it was known at the time that this cheque was no good, then you would not have been allowed to take possession of the car", to which the Appellant answered "No, I suppose not". The Officer said "The next...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • R v Turner
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 29 March 1973
    ...the worthless cheque resulted in the debt of £38 being "evaded". 9 One of the earlier decisions on this section was PAGE (1971) 2 Weekly Law Reports 1308. There, however, the worthless cheques passed by the accused were not given in respect of an antecedent debt, but were given in return f......
  • R v Charles
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 28 July 1976
    ...drawing a cheque, than that cited by my noble and learned friend Lord Edmund-Davies from Kenny which was adopted by the Court of Appeal in Reg. v. Page [1971] 2 Q.B. 330. It combines representations (1) and (3) from Kenny, but it omits representation (2). A customer needs no authority from......
  • R v Charles
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 29 June 1976
    ...is to consider the comparable representations which are implied by the presentation of a cheque which is not backed by a cheque card. In R. v. Page (1971) 2 Queen's Bench 330, this Court considered that matter and in the judgment of the Court, delivered by Lord Justice Phillimore, this pass......
  • R v Locker
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 6 April 1971
    ...of a debt. There is a trace, or indeed more than a trace of this distinction in the earlier case to which I have referred, the case of Regina v. Page decided in this Court on the 26th January, 1971. Much contention has been raised as to whether, when applying Section 16, we are concerned to......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Preliminary Sections
    • Nigeria
    • DSC Publications Online Nigerian Supreme Court Cases. 1976 Preliminary Sections
    • 15 November 2022
    ...Okoni 4 WACA 19 367 R. v. Ororosokodo (1960) 5 F.S.C. 208 303 R. v. Osakwe 12 W.A.C.A. 366. 212 R. v. Page (1971) 55 Cr. App. R. 197; (1971) 2 All E.R. 870. 212 R. v. Rand (1866) L.R. 1 CP 230. 500 R. v. Richard 13 Cr. App. R. 140. 125 R. v. Robinson 11 Cr. App R. 124. 125 R. v. Smith (1960......
  • Money for nothing, cheques for free? The meaning of 'financial advantage' in fraud offences.
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 31 No. 1, April 2007
    • 1 April 2007
    ...if it is dishonoured the debt upon the original consideration revives.' (99) See, eg, R v Locker [1971] 2 QB 321 ('Locker'); R v Page [1971] 2 QB 330; R v Fazackerley [1973] 2 All ER 819; R v Turner [1973] 2 All ER (100) [1974] AC 357. (101) Section 16(2)(a) of the Theft Act 1968 (UK) c 60 ......
  • Recent Judicial Decisions
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles No. 75-2, April 2002
    • 1 April 2002
    ...to certain erroneous dicta of this court in RvWaterfall [1969] 3 All ER 1048; and during this yearithasled to two decisions, RvPage [1971] 2 All ER 870 and RvLocker [1971] 2 All ER 875, the former of which has, in theview of Professor JC Smith (see [1971] 2 All ER at 880;[1971] 2 WLR at 130......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT