DPP v Harrington

 
FREE EXCERPT

1990 WJSC-CCA 1622

THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

Hederman J.

Lardner J.

Johnson J.

17/89
DPP v. HARRINGTON
THE PEOPLE AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
.v.
NOEL HARRINGTON

Citations:

FORGERY ACT 1913 S8

FORGERY ACT 1913 S11

FORGERY ACT 1913 S15

Synopsis:

CRIMINAL LAW

Forgery

Bank notes - Possession - ~Mens rea~ - Proof - Sufficiency - Absence of evidence that accused knew that the notes were counterfeit - Proof of knowledge beyond reasonable doubt required - Conviction quashed - Forgery Act, 1913, s. 8 - (17/89 - Court of Criminal Appeal - 31/7/90)

|The People v. Harrington|

EVIDENCE

Onus of proof

Discharge - Prosecution - Failure - Forgery - Bank notes - Possession - Essential proof being that accused knew that notes were forged - Proof beyond reasonable doubt - (17/89 - Court of Criminal Appeal - 31/7/90)

|The People v. Harrington|

Lardner J.
1

Noel Harrington was tried by the Special Criminal Court on the 24th of January 1989 with Geoffrey Tong Yow and Gerard Crilly on a charge of possession of forged bank notes namely, 40,000 forged U.S. 50 dollar bills under Section 8 of the Forgery Act 1913. On the 31st of January 1989 he was convicted on this charge and sentenced to four years” penal servitude. An application for leave to appeal was refused and he now appeals to this Court for leave against this conviction on two grounds namely,:

2

(1) that the Special Criminal Court erred in law in refusing to accede to his application that he had no case to answer at the end of the prosecution case and

3

(2) that the Special Criminal Court erred in law in finding that he knew that the dollar bank notes the subject of the charge were counterfeit.

4

The offence under Section 8 of the Forgery Act 1913 is in the following terms:

"Every person shall be guilty of felony and on conviction thereof shall be liable to penal servitude for any term not exceeding 14 years, who, without lawful authority or excuse, the proof whereof shall lie on the accused, purchases or receives from any person, or has in his custody or possession, a forged bank note, knowing the same to be forged."

5

In the present case Section 8 requires to be read with Section 11 which provides:

"Any person who knowingly and wilfully aids, abets, counsels, causes, procures, or commands the commission of an offence punishable under this Act shall be liable to be dealt with, indicted, tried and punished as a principal offender."

6

It is an essential element in this offence that the person charged should at the time of his possession of the bank notes have had knowledge that they were forged and it is common case that the onus of proving this knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt lay upon the Prosecution. The evidence for the Prosecution which might be considered to have a bearing...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL