DPP v Ryan
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | FINLAY C.J. |
| Judgment Date | 07 July 1986 |
| Neutral Citation | 1986 WJSC-CCA 577 |
| Docket Number | 3/1986 |
| Court | Court of Criminal Appeal |
| Date | 07 July 1986 |
1986 WJSC-CCA 577
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Finlay C.J.
Lynch J.
Barr J.
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|
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.
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.
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.
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 it became clear that Kirby was not anxious to undertake the job. The Applicant then typed out on one of the billheads an estimate in the sum of £443.80 which was less than the lower of the other two estimates, and submitted three estimates: one from CIE, one from Nat Ross, and one purporting to be from William Kirby, to the authorities. The authorities sanctioned the employment of William Kirby. The Applicant had the furniture and effects removed by his brother-in-law who was not a licensed haulier but had an appropriate conveyance to bring the articles and who had in fact quoted to him the figure of £443.80. He did not pay his brother-in-law any amount, but then submitted to the authorities a claim for recoupment, supported inter alia, by a receipt purporting to have been signed by William Kirby for the sum of £443.80 entered on the second of the pieces of notepaper which the Applicant had obtained from him. The application for recoupment having been received required a further signature from one of the officers superior to the Applicant in his own district before it could be considered and apparently before such signature was obtained, a query arose in the administration section of the Garda Siochana with regard to the genuineness of the application and an investigation was commenced leading to the putting of two charges of forgery and a charge of attempting to obtain the money by false pretences.
At the trial the learned trial Judge directed the jury to find the Applicant not guilty on the two charges of forgery...
To continue reading
Request your trial