R v Waterfall
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 25 July 1969 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1969] EWCA Crim J0725-3 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 2069/69 |
| Date | 25 July 1969 |
[1969] EWCA Crim J0725-3
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Parker)
Mr. Justice Waller
and
Mr. Justice O'Connor
No. 2069/69
MR. W. WARD appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.
MR. J. SPOKES appeared as Counsel for the Crown.
This appellant was convicted last March at Southampton Quarter Sessions of obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception; he was, after an adjournment, sentenced by having a Hospital Order made under Section 60 of the Mental Health Act. He now appeals against his conviction on a point of law. The facts are in a very short compass and are somewhat unusual. In the early hours of the 31st January the appellant telephoned for a taxi and asked the driver to take him to the station at Southampton to catch a train to London. The driver pointed out that at that hour of the morning - it was then 3.50 a.m. - there was no train to London, but after some discussion he offered to drive the appellant to London for £14. The appellant said he had an appointment at the B.B.C. early in the morning, and when they arrived there the driver asked for £10 in advance and the appellant replied: "You'll get that when I get to Harley Street and see my accountant". By this time the taxi driver felt that he was being deceived. They then drove off to Highgate to an address where the appellant said he once lodged and where he hoped to borrow money. He did not obtain any success there, nor did he get any success out of the accountant at Harley Street; indeed he said to the taxi driver that the accountant was not able to let him have any money. In the result they drove back to Southampton where the appellant tried to raise money at different addresses, and so it went on. The driver was never paid.
The prosecution case was that from beginning to end the appellant had a dishonest intent and that he never intended to pay the taxi driver the money.
Section 16 subsection (1) reads: "A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains for himself or another any pecuniary advantage shall on conviction on indictment be liable" etc.; by subsection (3) "For the purposes of this section 'deception' has the same meaning as in section 15 of this Act". Section 15, subsection (4) provides that: "For purposes of this section 'deception' means any deception (whether deliberate or reckless) by words or conduct as to fact or as to law,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Ghosh
...R. v. Landy can be disregarded "in view of the wealth of authority to the contrary". The matter, we feel, is not as simple as that. 34In R. v. Waterfall (1970) 1 Q.B. 148, the defendant was charged under section 16 of the Theft Act with dishnnestly obtaining a pecuniary advantage from a ta......
-
Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd (trading as Crockfords)
...R v Feely [1973] QB 530 and R v Greenstein [1975] 1 WLR 1353 as tending to support an objective approach, and R v Landy [1981] 1 WLR 355, R v Waterfall [1970] 1 QB 148, R v Royle [1971] 1 WLR 1764 and R v Gilks [1972] 1 WLR 1341 as tending to favour a subjective one. It treated R v McIvor [......
-
Brian Kindi Lawi v The State [1987] PNGLR 183
...solution." The Court in R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053 then examined the following cases which adopted a "subjective" approach: R v Waterfall [1970] 1 QB 148 with Lord Parker CJ giving the judgment of the Court; R v Royle [1971] 1 WLR 1764, with Edmund Davies LJ giving the judgment of the Court a......
-
R v Royle
...by Fraud and the Theft Act" in 1971 Criminal Law Review at page 448; it is said to have led to certain erroneous dicta of this Court in R. v. Waterfall reported in 1970 1 Queen's Bench at page 148 (see Mr. Edward Griew in 1970 Criminal Law Review at page 34 and Professor J.C. Smith in 1971 ......
-
The Criminal Liabilities of Directors to the Creditors of the Company: Section 458 Companies Act 1985
...was not entirely objective in fact. (17) [1974] 3 All ER 1032 at p. 1038,[1975] AC 819 at p. 839. (18) at pp. 1040 and 841 ibid. (19) [1969] 3 All ER 1048,[1970] 1 QB 148. (20) At pp. 1049-1050 ibid, and at pp. 150-151 ibid. See also R v Royle[1971] 3 All ER 1359,[1971] 1 WLR 1764. (21) [19......
-
The Fraud Act 2006—Some Early Observations and Comparisons with the Former Law
...P hasnever had.39 [1996] Crim LR 518.40 [2001] EWCA Crim 295.41 [1974] AC 370.42 R v Harris (1975) 62 Cr App Rep 28.43 R v Waterfall [1969] 3 All ER 1048.The Journal of Criminal The obtaining was not because of the deception, but for another reasonIn R v Laverty44 a case under s. 15 of the ......
-
Recent Judicial Decisions
...theCourtof Appeal. Therewere some cases, otherthanLandy,thatsupportthe objective view.In an early case on the Theft Act, R. v. Waterfall [1970] 1Q.B. 148,the trialJudgedirected thejurythata man could not have a genuinebelief unless he had reasonable grounds for it.Thesame view wastaken in R......