Levy v Herbert
| Jurisdiction | St Lucia |
| Judge | Wills, J. |
| Judgment Date | 02 April 1959 |
| Neutral Citation | LC 1959 HC 2 |
| Docket Number | Appeal No. 1 of 1959 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Lucia) |
| Date | 02 April 1959 |
Supreme Court of the Windward and Leeward Islands. (Appellate Jurisdiction)
Wills, J.
Appeal No. 1 of 1959
W. L. McIntyre, Acting Crown Attorney, for appellant
V. Floissac for respondent
Criminal law - Appeal against conviction — False pretenses.
Facts: The appellant instituted criminal proceedings against the respondent police officer charging false pretences contrary to Section 275 of the Criminal Code. Court found that the prosecution established a prima facie case and a defence ought to have been called for thereby affording the respondent an opportunity of leading a defence if he so advised.
Held: The decision of the magistrate would be set aside and the case remitted for a hearing de novo.
The appellant instituted criminal proceedings against the respondent, a Police Officer, charging false pretences contrary to s. 275 of the Criminal Code.
The case of the prosecution may be summarised thus: The respondent, being a Police Officer, was entitled to a travelling allowance of thirteen (13) cents per mile whenever he travelled on duty in his own motor car or a private car and not otherwise.
The prosecution by several witnesses deposed that on the 2 nd June 1958 and 26 th June 1958 respectively, the respondent travelled on duty from Vieux-Fort to Micoud and back and from Vieux-Fort to Choiseul and back, respectively, in a Police Land Rover No. 900.
The respondent thereafter prepared and submitted a travelling claim in which, inter alia: the places aforementioned and mileage travelled were included. The respondent represented that he used his private car in the making of these journeys and was entitled to be paid thirteen (13) cents per mile for such journeys.
The prosecution contended that the respondent received a sum of money from the Government of St. Lucia by falsely pretending that he used his private car for the making of the said journeys in question, whereas, in fact and in truth, the respondent made the journeys in the Government Land Rover No. 900 as he well knew at the time when he submitted the travelling account or claim.
At the close of case for the prosecution, counsel for the respondent made a no case submission which was upheld by the magistrate on the ground that no prima facie case was made out.
The appellant being dissatisfied with that decision has appealed to this Court.
It may well be that the magistrate in upholding the submission of counsel had in mind the Law of England as contained in the Larceny Act 1916, section 32.
In the exercise of the judicial mind it is important to grasp a first principle, namely: the Courts of Law in St. Lucia must interpret and administer the statute Law of St. Lucia as contained in the Criminal Code of St. Lucia.
Section 5 (b) of the Criminal Code makes this imperative and there can be no deviation or compromise.
The marginal note reads: “Construction of other Laws excluded” and the section runs thus: “in the construction of this Code, a court shall not be bound by any judicial decision or opinion on the construction of any other statute, or of the Common Law, as to the definition of any offence or of any element of any offence”.
As regards Practice and Procedure in the courts and the Law of Evidence in the Summary Courts, provision is made by s. 1033 of the Criminal Code for the application of ss. 913 and 948 respectively and these enact that the Practice and Procedure and the Law of Evidence of England shall apply subject to statutory provisions.
There is no provision in the Criminal Code for a carte blanche application of the statute Law of England.
For the purposes of this appeal, it is necessary to examine the section under which the respondent is charged and the corresponding English section for the purpose of considering whether the elements in law are the same to establish a prima facie case.
Section 275 of the Criminal Code reads: “Whoever defrauds any other person by any false pretence is liable…summarily, if the value of the thing in respect of which such fraud is committed does not exceed five pounds…”
The complaint against the respondent reads: “the defendant on the 4 th day of July 1958, in this Colony did defraud the Government of St. Lucia of the sum of $6.50 by falsely pretending that he was entitled to a mileage allowance respect of 50 miles at the rate of thirteen (13) cents per mile. Section 275 of the Criminal Code.”
The Law of England by the Larceny Act, 1916, s. 32, reads:
“Every person who by any false pretence
-
(1) with intent to defraud obtains from any person any chattel, money, or valuable security or causes or procures any money to be paid or any chattel or valuable security to be delivered to himself or to any other person, or;
-
(2) with intent to defraud or injure any other person fraudulently causes or induces any other person (a) to execute, make, accept, endorse or destroy the whole or any part of any valuable security, or; (b) to write, impress, or affix his name or the name of any person or the seal of any body corporate or society upon any paper or parchment in order that the same may be afterwards made or converted into or used or dealt with as a valuable security shall be guilty of misdemeanour”.
It is apparent that the aim and object of s. 275 of the Criminal Code and s. 32 of the Larceny Act, 1916, is to suppress the mischief and the crime of false pretences.
It is also obvious that the scheme and scope of the aforesaid statutory enactments are not the same and differ in many essential elements, in the result, the proofs and evidence required to bring an offender to justice under s. 275 of the Criminal Code and s. 32 of the Larceny Act, 1916, are not the same.
The intricacies, the complexities, the very subtle distinctions and even the conflicting judicial decisions to be found on and in construing the Larceny Act, 1916, are all whittled down and almost obliterated by the statutory enactments contained in the Criminal Code of St. Lucia.
Section 270 of the Criminal Code without any ambiguity...
To continue reading
Request your trial