Recent Judicial Decisions
| Author | John Wood |
| Date | 01 April 1986 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X8605900208 |
| Published date | 01 April 1986 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
PROFESSOR
SIR
JOHN
WOOD,
C.B.E., LL.M.
The University
of
Sheffield.
Legal Correspondent
of
the Police Journal.
RECENT
JUDICIAL
DECISIONS
FATHER'S ALLOWANCE
R. v. Tobierre [1986] I W.L.R. 125
Court
of Appeal
For
some five
and
ahalf years Tobierre's wife and four children
were living in St. Lucia. He remained in England
and
was paid
during
that
time some £4,345 children's allowance. Each week he
signed a voucher for the allowance book, which was in his wife's
name. He drew the money in the usual way from a post office.
The
rules relating to entitlement to family allowance provide
that
when a
child has been absent from
Great
Britain for six months the local
social security office should be told and the
book
surrendered. This
is clearly stated in the book. Therefore Tobierre was charged with
seven, specimen, counts of using a false instrument contrary to s. 3
of the Forgery
and
Counterfeiting Act 1981. He was convicted on a
majority verdict
and
sentenced to one year's imprisonment on each
count, concurrently.
The
appeal
was based on the
nature
of the
recorder's direction to the
jury
and raised several points.
The core of the defence was the accused's belief in his entitlement
to the money. He explained his concept of the child allowance
scheme which was
that
deductions were made from wages and paid
into a fund from which the allowance was drawn. He had
drawn
money for his wife when she had been in England. At least some of
the
amount
charged had been sent to St. Lucia to maintain his
children. He said he had not read the instructions in the book. The
key point in the appeal was whether it was a valid defence
that
the
accused genuinely did not intend to induce the acceptance of the
vouchers as genuine so as to induce an unjustified payment.
It
was a
defence
not
put
by the recorder to the jury.
There was ample evidence
that
the voucher was presented as
genuine.
It
was the state of the accused's mind towards his
entitlement which was not put. Section 3 reads:
"it
is an offence for a person to use an instrument which is,
and which he knows or believes to be, false, with the intention of
inducing somebody to accept it is genuine, and by reason of so
accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own
or
any
other
person's prejudice".
It
is possible to argue
that
the only point to be established is the
inducement
that
an instrument is genuine. Alternatively, there has
to be an intention to induce aprejudicial act.
The
Court
of Appeal
preferred the second view.
It
was followed
that
the charge was
defective and so the convictions were quashed.
/64
Apri//986
To continue reading
Request your trial