R v Lambie

English Criminal Law

R v Lambie
‘Red Purse’ by Vladimir Kush

Fraudulent misrepresentation and the need for proof of inducement, may at first seem like prudent adjudication, however when the facts are properly assembled, there is little doubt as to whether the act itself was one of corroboration through personal gain, or a simple exploitation of the contractual arrangements between credit and debtor.

In the winter of 1980, the now respondent was convicted for obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception under s.16(1) of the Theft Act 1968 after an indictment on two counts, one of which was quashed, while the second occurred during a period after the lending bank had recalled the credit card used.

Having been granted use of the card in spring 1977, the bank had, after a period of time, requested its return after the respondent had incurred a debt far in excess of the prescribed limit of £200. On 6 December 1977, the respondent agreed to return the card, after which she entered into a transaction in a Mothercare store on 15 December 1977, before returning the card on 19 December, at which point the debt had increased to a princely £1005.

At the trial, the jury returned a verdict against the respondent, after which she appealed on grounds that the store clerk had, by her application of store policy regards their relationship with the bank, allowed the transaction to proceed, not because she had been falsely induced, but rather because the credit card was (i) within the expiration date, (ii) not on the store’s ‘stop list’ and (iii) the respondent’s signature matched that on the card. It was also argued that the mere presentation of the card did not indicate anything more than that of a right to use it, as opposed to any representation on behalf of the bank, therefore liability for deception could not stand.

With doubts as to the exactness of related precedent, the Court of Appeal reluctantly overturned the conviction, during which Cumming-Bruce LJ remarked:

“By their contract with the bank, Mothercare had bought from the bank the right to sell goods to Barclaycard holders without regard to the question whether the customer was complying with the terms of the contract between the customer and the bank.”

At which point the County Chief Constable appealed under s.33(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, and the matter was again presented before the House of Lords. Here, the facts of R v Charles were given deliberate consideration, in particular the commentary by Diplock LJ who had explained:

“By exhibiting to the payee a cheque card containing the undertaking by the bank to honour cheques drawn in compliance with the conditions endorsed on the back, and drawing the cheque accordingly, the drawer represents to the payee that he has actual authority from the bank to make a contract with the payee on the bank’s behalf that it will honour the cheque on presentment for payment.

What creates ostensible authority in a person who purports to enter into a contract as agent for a principal is a representation made to the other party that he has the actual authority of the principal for whom he claims to be acting to enter into the contract on that person’s behalf.

[T]hen, is he bound by the contract purportedly made on his behalf. The whole foundation of liability under the doctrine of ostensible authority is a representation, believed by the person to whom it is made, that the person claiming to contract as agent for a principal has the actual authority of the principal to enter into the contract on his behalf.”

Which meant that despite the protestations of exemption from the transaction, the respondent was inevitably liable for deception when using the card in the knowledge that it was the property of the issuing bank, and that the period for its used had since expired. It was also noted by the House that when introducing the concept of inducement into any act of fraud, the words of Humphrey J in R v Sullivan reminded the judiciary that:

“[I]t is patent that there was only one reason which anybody could suggest for the person alleged to have been defrauded parting with his money, and that is the false pretence, if it was a false pretence.”

At which point the House unanimously reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal and awarded due judgment for the Crown, while holding that:

“[W]here the direct evidence of the witness is not and cannot reasonably be expected to be available, reliance upon a dishonest representation cannot be sufficiently established by proof of facts from where an irresistible inference of such reliance can be drawn.”

R v Cheshire (1991)

English Criminal Law

R v Cheshire
Image: ‘The Surgeon’ by Jose Perez

Novus actus interveniens’ or breaking the chain of causation, is a maxim often relied upon in criminal cases, however, while the principle itself is simple enough, the facts required to establish it prove far from clear. In a case involving the potentially fatal shooting of an unwitting victim, the surgical aftercare provided, became subject to the scrutiny of the courts when death followed soon afterwards.

In late 1987, the deceased was party to an argument with the now appellant, which resulted in three shots being fired from a concealed handgun. The first bullet was fired in the air above them, while the second and third entered the victim’s upper thigh and abdomen, shortly before the appellant fled from the scene.

Having been rushed to hospital, the surgeons cleaned up both wounds, while reconnecting the thigh bone and undertaking an extensive bowel resection in order to prevent further complications. In the weeks following his admission, the deceased complained of breathing difficulties, at which point a tracheotomy was performed, after a simple ventilating machine had failed to properly address the problem.

Around a month later his condition deteriorated, and so investigative measures were taken to inspect the stomach wound, while the deceased began to suffer with vomitous discharge and chest infections, later resulting in fluid permeation of the lungs. It was then, after numerous complaints and several visits by the consultant general surgeon, surgical registrar, orthopaedic registrar and finally the house surgeon, that his breathing pattern was recognised as ‘stridor’, a disturbing vibration typically associated with an obstruction of the larynx or windpipe.

Unfortunately, despite the intervention of a medical registrar and urgent cardiac massage, the deceased died as a result of mucus blockage of the windpipe resulting from excessive tracheotomy scarring, upon which the resident pathologist concluded that:

“I give as the cause of death cardio-respiratory arrest due to gunshot wounds of the abdomen and leg.”

At the trial, the judge directed the jury to establish a conviction of recklessness on the part of the hospital, which if proven, would support the breaking of the chain of causation on grounds that the hospital had failed to properly identify the actual cause of death, and that in doing so, the appellant’s actions were now secondary to the death of the victim. After a degree of jury deliberation, a verdict was passed in favour of the hospital, before the appellant challenged the judgment under s.23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

Presented to the Court of Appeal, consideration was given to the principle of recklessness and gross negligence, while particular reference was made to the words of Goff LJ in R v Pagett, who said:

“Even where it is necessary to direct the jury’s minds to the question of causation, it is usually enough to direct them simply that in law the accused’s act need not be the sole cause, or even the main cause, of the victim’s death, it being enough that his act contributed significantly to that result…nevertheless the intervention of a third person may be regarded as the sole cause of the victim’s death, thereby relieving the accused of criminal responsibility.”

However in R v Smith it was also argued by Parker CJ that:

“It seems to the court that if at the time of death the original wound is still an operating cause and a substantial cause, then the death can properly be said to be the result of the wound, albeit that some other cause of death is also operating. Only if it can be said that the original wounding is merely the setting in which another cause operates can it be said that the death does not result from the wound. Putting it in another way, only if the second cause is so overwhelming as to make the original wound merely part of the history can it be said that the death does not flow from the wound.”

Before Lane CJ later reiterated in R v Malcherek that:

“[T]he fact that the victim has died, despite or because of medical treatment for the initial injury given by careful and skilled medical practitioners, will not exonerate the original assailant from responsibility for the death.”

With careful appreciation of the medical evidence, along with reasoned accommodation of the high threshold of surgical margins of error, the Court held that despite the alleged negligence of the hospital staff, there was simply insufficient evidence to uphold the application of ‘novus actus interveniens’, and that even with the best medical team on hand to treat the deceased, the fundamental cause of death preceding the complication was, and remained, the shooting by the appellant, and so on those grounds the appeal was dismissed and the original murder charge upheld.