The appellant and his wife appliied for loans to buy residential properties to be let to obtain a rental income covering most of the mortgage payments. The properties were later sold to take advantages of increases in value. A sum of andpound;1.5 million was made by the two defendants. The building societies would not make such advances for commercial purposes or for trading purposes, so the appellant gave false particulars on the applications. On discovery, they were charged with obtaining property, the building societies’ cheques, by deception. The appellant gave evidence that he did not regard his actions as dishonest because the building societies’ interests were fully protected and he had had no intention of depriving them permanently of the money lent. The prosecution objected to the admissibility of that evidence. The trial judge accepted that submission and ruled accordingly. He changed his plea to guilty. His complaint about the conviction was that his evidence had been relevant to the issue of dishonesty and the judge’s ruling to exclude it was therefore wrong.
Held: Kennedy J drew attention to Ghosh, and Feely to say that where the issue of dishonesty is raised, it must be left to the jury. He continued: ‘it is by no means in every case involving dishonesty that a Ghosh direction is necessary. But if dishonesty is the issue, even though deception has been proved, a judge should be slow to seek to constrain a defendant as to how he puts his case. The attempt to show that the deception was a white lie may sound far fetched. But unless the evidence is plainly irrelevant to the issue of dishonesty, it should not be excluded.’ and, on the facts of that case: ‘No one suggests that an intention to repay or to perform contractual obligations can of itself amount to a defence. But it may be some evidence of dishonesty: just as a demonstrated intention not to perform those obligations would be some evidence of dishonesty.’
Judges:
Kennedy J
Citations:
(1992) 94 Cr App R 33
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Feely CACD 1973
In relation to a charge of theft where the issue of dishonesty is raised, the issue must be left to the jury. Dishonesty is not a matter of law, but a jury question of fact and standards. Except to the limited extent that section 2 of the Theft Act . .
Cited – Regina v Ghosh CACD 5-Apr-1982
The defendant surgeon was said to have made false claims for payment for operations, and was charged under the 1968 Act. He claimed to have been entitled to the sums claimed, and denied that he had been dishonest. The court considered the meaning of . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Clarke CACD 2-Apr-1996
Several people had lost large sums of mony by a fraud. The defendant had approached them offering his services as a private investigator to seek to recover their money. He pleaded guilty to one allegation of deception after an indication from the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.446001
