DPP v Ryan

 
FREE EXCERPT

1986 WJSC-CCA 577

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

Finlay C.J.

Lynch J.

Barr J.

3/1986
DPP v. RYAN
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
v.
WILLIAM ANTHONY RYAN

Citations:

AG V SULLIVAN 1964 IR 169

LONDON & GLOBE FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, IN RE 1903 1 CH 728

Synopsis:

CRIMINAL LAW

Fraud

Attempt - Proof - Charge to jury - Accused convicted of attempt to obtain money by false pretences - Distinction between intent to deceive and intent to defraud - Inadequate charge to jury - Absence of requisition by defence counsel - Jury seeking guidance in relation to deceit and fraud - Proximation of acts of accused to the attempt charged - Accused was prima facie entitled to be repaid expenses of removal of household possessions from one location to another - False application by accused for recoupment of removal expenses - Expenses not incurred - Deceit discovered by recipient of application before recoupment authorised - Held that there was a risk that the jury had been inadequately charged on the distinction between deceit and fraud - Conviction quashed and new trial ordered - (3/86 - C.C.A. - 7/7/86)- [1990] IR 403

|Director of Public Prosecutions v. Ryan|

FRAUD

Attempt

Proof - Charge to jury - Accused convicted of attempt to obtain money by false pretences - Distinction between intent to deceive and intent to defraud - Inadequate charge to jury - ~See~ Criminal Law, fraud - (3/86 - C.C.A. - 7/7/86)- [1990] IR 403

|Director of Public Prosecutions v. Ryan|

FINLAY C.J.
1

This is an application for leave to appeal against a conviction for the offence of attempting to obtain £443.80 by false pretences from State funds which was recorded against the Applicant on the 31st January 1986 in the Cork Circuit Criminal Court.

2

The Applicant is a Sergeant in the Garda Siochana, and in June 1984 was transferred from Timoleague, Co. Cork to Rosscarbery, Co. Cork. Under the regulations governing such transfer, the Applicant was entitled to be recouped by the State the amount which he expended in removing his furniture and other belongings from his residence at Timoleague to the residence which he was obtaining in Rosscarbery.

3

Apparently the procedure for recovering the amount of such cost of removal was that the member of the force concerned was required to submit to the authorities not less than three separate tenders for the removal of the furniture and other effects all from licensed hauliers and upon receiving approval of the authorities for one of these tenders, was obliged to have the removal carried out by that firm. On the completion of the removal and the payment to the furniture remover by the member, he was entitled to recoupment from State funds.

4

On the evidence, which was not contested at the trial, the Applicant obtained an estimate for the removal of his furniture from CIE and from Nat Ross Limited. In addition he had a discussion with one William Kirby who was a licensed haulier and asked him if he would like to tender for the job. Kirby expressed an interest and gave to the Applicant or his wife two billheads without any particulars or writing entered on them, the purpose, apparently, being that the Applicant should fill in on one of these billheads a list of the furniture and effects to be removed, and upon looking at that, Kirby would be in a position to make an estimate of the cost of the job. The Applicant did not fill in a list of the goods to be removed on either of the billheads, but on a further discussion with Kirby...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL