R v Wiltshire

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Court: High Court (Barbados)
• Judge: Williams, J.
• Judgment Date: 26 January 1976
• Neutral Citation: BB 1976 HC 6
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No. 37 of 1976
• Date: 26 January 1976

High Court

Williams, J.

Criminal Case No. 37 of 1976

R.

and

Wiltshire

Criminal Law - Larceny

Facts: The accused was tried on a ten count indictment — Counts 1, 5 and 8 each charged the offence of obtaining credit under false pretences contrary to s. 79 (a) of the Larceny Act, Cap. 139 — Count 10 charged an attempt to obtain credit under false pretences — The other counts each charged the offence of obtaining money by false pretences contrary to s. 76 (1) of the Larceny Act

Held: At the close of the case for the prosecution the trial judge directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty on each of the 10 counts on the basis that there was an insufficiency of evidence against the accused.

Williams, J.

1 Mr. Foreman, Ladies and Gentlemen:

2 The law is that a man can only be convicted of an offence with which he is charged and it is the duty of the crown to ensure that the evidence supports the charge or charges laid against an accused person. This is a principle which is deeply rooted in our legal tradition.

3 In this case the accused had been placed in your charge on ten counts. They are lengthy and there is no need to repeat them in detail. It is sufficient to say that counts 1, 5 and 8 charge the offence of obtaining credit under false pretences, contrary to section 79(a) of the Larceny Act, Chapter 139. Count 10 charges an attempt to obtain credit under false pretences. Count 2 charges the offence of obtaining money by false pretences contrary to section 76(1) of the Larceny Act, Chapter 139. Counts 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 also contain charges of the offences of obtaining money by false pretences contrary to section 76(1) of the Larceny Act, Chapter 139 but I have dealt with them separately because the second count alleges that the accused obtained the money by falsely pretending that a certain Chase Manhattan Bank cheque which he then produced and delivered to the Bank was a good and valid order for the payment of money whereas counts 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9 all contain an allegation of a previous production and delivery to the Bank.

4 Before going into the legal aspects of the matter I will set out the substance of the case which the crown has presented. The prosecution alleges that –

• (1) The accused's account with the Chase Manhattan Bank, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, had been closed and that well before the month of May, 1973 this was known to the accused;

• (2) Nevertheless, during May-June, 1973 the accused presented cheques to the Royal Bank of Canada in Bridgetown, cheques drawn on the Chase Manhattan Bank, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands and had the amounts of the cheques credited to a savings account which he had at the Royal Bank of Canada;

• (3) Subsequently he withdrew from this savings account sums of money representing part of the credit which he had received for the cheques;

• (4) The cheques were not honoured by the Chase Manhattan Bank, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands

5 The case for the prosecution is that the accused acted throughout the transactions with an intention to defraud.

6 R. v. Jones [1898] 1 Q.B. 119 is an authority for the proposition, if indeed authority is needed, that the conjunction of three elements makes the statutory offence: (1) the incurring of a debt or liability (2) the obtaining of credit and (3) fraud. R. v. Mitchell [1955] 1 W.L.R. 1125; 39 Cr. App. R. 49...