R v Lambie (1981)

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 Stephenson (1979)

English Criminal Law

R v Stephenson
‘The Hay Bales’ by Roger Bansemer

Subjective ‘recklessness’ and the complexities of mental illness, are given equal weight when a charge of arson is levelled against a man who while apologetic for his actions, was astute enough to undertake, and become convicted of burglary, an act which in itself paradoxically requires a degree of foreseeability.

In the winter of 1977, the appellant trespassed upon farmland before climbing into a large straw stack to fall asleep. Suffering from the cold, the appellant decided to use the straw to build a small fire from which to keep warm. Unfortunately the fire quickly spread, before catching light to a Nissen hut containing farming equipment, resulting in damages of around £3,500.

Having fled the scene, he was later arrested, whereupon he immediately apologised and explained that the whole incident was an accident, and that he never intended to cause such destruction. When indicted, he was charged with burglary under s.9(1) of the Theft Act 1968 and arson under s.1(1)(3) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, yet at trial, the appellant failed to give any evidence aside from the medical testimony of a consultant psychiatrist, who confirmed that the appellant was suffering form schizophrenia, and as such, was unable to appreciate the obvious risks attached to starting a fire in such a hazardous environment.

When directing the jury, the judge used the phrase:

“[A] man is reckless if he realises that there is a risk, but nevertheless presses on regardless.”

While reiterating the words of the Appeal Court in an earlier case, which were:

“A man is reckless in the sense required (that is to say, in the sense which leads to conviction) when he carried out a deliberate act knowing or closing his mind to the obvious fact that there is some risk of damage resulting from that act, but nevertheless continuing in the performance of that act.”

At which point the jury returned a guilty verdict on both counts, whereupon the appellant took issue in the Court of Appeal on grounds of severe misdirection when applying the subjective principle of recklessness. Here, the definition of recklessness in R v Briggs was held as being that:

“A man is reckless in the sense required when he carries out a deliberate act knowing that there is some risk of damage resulting from that act but nevertheless continues in the performance of that act.”

While in the Law Commission Working Paper No.31 (Codification of the Criminal Law: General Principles. The Mental Element in Crime) it was explained how:

“A person is reckless if, (a) knowing that there is a risk that an event may result from his conduct or that a circumstance may exist, he takes that risk, and (b) it is unreasonable for him to take it having regard to the degree and nature of the risk which he knows to be present.”

Perhaps more importantly, the root definition of recklessness was outlined by Donovan J in R v Bates, when he said:

“The ordinary meaning of the word ‘reckless’ in the English language is ‘careless,’ ‘heedless,’ ‘inattentive to duty.’ Literally, of course, it means ‘without reck.’ ‘Reck’ is simply an old English word, now, perhaps, obsolete, meaning ‘heed,’ ‘concern,’ or ‘care.’”

Contrastingly, in Shawinigan Ltd v Vokins & Co Ltd the objective purpose of recklessness was defined by Megaw J who said:

“In my view, ‘reckless’ means grossly careless. Recklessness is gross carelessness – the doing of something which in fact involves a risk, whether the doer realises it or not; and the risk being such, having regard to all the circumstances, that the taking of that risk would be described as ‘reckless.’”

Yet in the House of Lords, Salmon J had recently promoted the subjective definition in Herrington v British Railways Board when he explained how:

“Recklessness has, in my opinion, a subjective meaning: it implies culpability. An action which would be reckless if done by a man with adequate knowledge, skill or resources might not be reckless if done by a man with less appreciation of or ability to deal with the situation.”

And so it was with full consideration of the effects and medico-legal opinion of schizophrenia, coupled with the perhaps ironically unstable history behind ‘recklessness’, that the Court found the arson conviction unsafe when knowing the jury were unable to wholly determine the mental limitations of the appellant. It was therefore on that basis that the burglary charge remained valid, while the arson charge was quashed on principles of natural justice.

Freegan Theft Defence Analysis within English Criminal Law

Academia

Freegan Theft Defence Analysis within English Criminal Law
Image: ‘Garbage Painting #26’ by Kellyanne Hanrahan

Freegan Theft Defence Analysis within English Criminal Law