R v Torr
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR. JUSTICE ASHWORTH |
| Judgment Date | 06 December 1965 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1965] EWCA Crim J1206-2 |
| Court | Court of Criminal Appeal |
| Docket Number | No. 1554/65 |
| Date | 06 December 1965 |
[1965] EWCA Crim J1206-2
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Royal Courts of Justice
Mr. Justice Ashworth
Mr. Justice Fenton Atkinson
and
Mr. Justice Widgery
No. 1554/65
MR. P. NORTHCOTE appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.
MR. J. LEE appeared as Counsel for the Crown.
This Appellant, Walter Torr, was convicted at Shropshire Sessions in June of this year, first of obtaining goods by false pretences, and secondly of obtaining credit by false pretences. He was sentenced on Count 1 to twelve months' imprisonment, and on Count 2 to six months' imprisonment, the second sentence to be consecutive to the first. It is against that conviction or those convictions and those sentences that he now appeals to this Court by leave of the Court.
The facts giving rise to the charge can be very shortly stated. The Appellant apparently met a man called Philtrip on the 10th September, 1964, Philtrip being the Sales Manager of a firm dealing in grain and seeds, and the Appellant asked him the price of wheat and barley. In the course of conversation, in reply to a question by Philtrip, the Appellant stated, so it was said, that he was himself a farmer and that he wanted foodstuffs for fattening his cattle on his farm near Stoke-on-Trent. He ordered 2 tons of wheat, 3 tons of barley and 1 ton of high protein meal to be delivered to his farm. Payment was not to be made at once, but in the course of the inquiries, believing what the Appellant had said to him, Philtrip accepted the Appellant's offer to pay within seven days, and he answered the normal question that was put to him in that form "If he had not told me the various things that he told me, I would not have let him have the goods". In fact some two days later the Appellant sold the wheat to one farmer and the barley to another farmer at a lower price than that which he had agreed to pay to Philtrip's firm. As a result of the negotiations that took place on the 10th September, the goods were loaded on a lorry and apparently the Appellant himself on the following Saturday, two days later, went to assist in delivery and to escort the vehicle to the farmers to whom he had agreed on his own part to sell the foodstuffs.
The defence was primarily that the whole episode may have been a misunderstanding but was certainly not dishonest, and that the Appellant never made the false representations alleged against him. He said that in so far as Mr. Philtrip thought that he, the Appellant, was a farmer it was a matter of assumption and not as a result of any representations.
There were before the Jury three counts, the first for obtaining goods by false pretences, the second for obtaining credit by fraud, namely the sum of £109 15s. Od., which was the cost of the foodstuffs, and the third charge was of obtaining credit by fraud other than false pretences. As the Jury convicted the Appellant on the first two counts, they were in fact discharged from returning a verdict on the third count, and quite properly so discharged.
The first matter that really comes before this Court, and on which another division of this Court gave leave to appeal, is whether Counts 1 and 2 were both properly included in the indictment as cumulative charges, or whether they should properly be regarded as alternatives. It is said that what really happened here was that the Appellant, assuming against him that he made false representations, obtained credit, to wit the concession made by the vendor that he need not pay until the following Wednesday, but that the obtaining of goods was not as a result of the representation but, as I follow Mr. Northcote, was the result of his having obtained credit by means of false representations. The prosecution on the other hand said that both these charges can properly be maintained on these facts; either would have been the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
V Murugesan v Public Prosecutor
...This was expressly spelt out in the charge for the offence of abduction. As stated by the English Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Torr [1966] 1 All ER 178 at [A]s both charges arise out of precisely the same facts and involve, so to speak, exactly the same criminality on the part of the app......
-
PP v Firdaus bin Abdullah
...(refd) Purwanti Parji v PP [2005] 2 SLR (R) 220; [2005] 2 SLR 220 (refd) R v Peter John Kastercum (1972) 56 Cr App R 298 (refd) R v Torr [1966] 1 WLR 52; [1966] 1 All ER 178 (refd) Sim Gek Yong v PP [1995] 1 SLR (R) 185; [1995] 1 SLR 537 (refd) Subagio Soeharto v PPMA 505/1993 (refd) Tse Po......
-
Public Prosecutor v Han Ong Guan @ Han Ong Juan and Jeremy Han Wan Kwang
...and it was really part and parcel of the rape" (at [35]). The court also cited the English Court of Criminal Appeal case of R v Torr [1966] 1 All ER 178 at 180: [A]s both charges arise out of precisely the same facts and involve, so to speak, exactly the same criminality on the part of the ......
- R v Smith and Wynter