R v Armstead

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: (Smith, Edun and Graham-Perkins, JJ.A.)
• Judgment Date: 23 March 1973
• Court: Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
• Date: 23 March 1973

Court of Appeal of Jamaica

(Smith, Edun and Graham-Perkins, JJ.A.)

R.

and

ARMSTEAD

D.A. Scharschmidt for the Crown;

The applicant appeared in person.

Cases cited:

(1) R. v. AuteyENR(1857), D. & B. 294; 169 E.R. 1013; 7 Cox, C.C. 329, distinguished.

(2) R. v. James(1849), 4 Cox, C.C. 90.

Legislation construed:

Forgery Law (Laws of the Cayman Islands, 1963, cap. 58), s.4(2)(a): The relevant terms of this sub-section are set out at page 141, lines 2123.

Criminal Law-forgery and uttering-forgery of cheque and endorsement-forgery of endorsement on cheque not forgery of cheque itself and to he charged under Forgery Law (cap. 58), s.4(2)(a)-proof of forgery of endorsement not per se conclusive that forgery of cheque itself by same person

Criminal Law-forgery and uttering-inconsistent verdicts-convictions on forgery and uttering consistent with acquittals of possession of forged cheque obtained in circumstances amounting to felony and attempting to obtain pecuniary advantage by deception by use of cheque

The applicant was charged in the Grand Court with forgery of a cheque under the Forgery Law (cap. 58), s.4(2)(a) and other offences related to his having it in his possession and attempting to cash it.

The charges against the applicant were all in relation to a cheque drawn by a Philadelphia company on one Philadelphia bank and payable

to another Philadelphia bank on June 28th, 1972. The cheque was stopped after failing to arrive in that bank on the expected date. The cheque had been altered to bear the name George Barnes as payee and was allegedly produced by the applicant to the manager of the Grand Cayman branch of a New York bank, with the request that it be negotiated, to which end he endorsed the cheque with the name George Barnes in the presence of the manager.

The manager alerted the police and further investigations revealed that the applicant had booked in at two hotels in the Island, at one under the name of George Barnes and at the other under the name of Chester Armstead. The applicant admitted that he was Chester Armstead and related that he had a friend whose name was George Barnes and that he had merely booked a room for that person in anticipation of his arrival in the Cayman Islands the same day.

The applicant was charged with (i) forgery of the cheque; (ii) uttering the forged cheque; (iii) being in possession of goods, namely, the cheque, obtained outside the Cayman Islands under such circumstances that if the act had been committed in the Islands the person committing it would have been guilty of a felony; and (iv) attempting to obtain pecuniary advantage by deception. He was convicted on the first two counts and acquitted on the third and fourth. He applied for leave to appeal.

He submitted inter alia that (a) there was not sufficient evidence to support the charge of forgery; (b) the court had failed to take account of several inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which he had brought to its attention; and (c) the verdicts convicting him on the first two counts were inconsistent with those acquitting him on the third and fourth counts.

Counsel for the prosecution was invited to consider whether forging the endorsement on a valuable security was the same as forging the security itself. He submitted that (a) the endorsement was part of the valuable security and therefore forging the endorsement would be a forging of the cheque as well; and (b) alternatively, forgery of the endorsement could amount to proof by inference that it was the same person who had altered the name of the payee on the cheque.

Held, quashing the conviction on the first count:

(1) The endorsement on a bill of exchange was not normally a part of the bill of exchange and forgery of the endorsement would therefore not amount to forgery of the bill of exchange itself. Although there was evidence that the applicant had signed a false name on the back of the cheque to match the payees name on the front, there was no evidence that it was he who had previously altered the cheque by changing the name of the payee. If it were claimed that his falsely endorsing the cheque in the name of the payee amounted to forgery, then a charge should have been laid under the Forgery Law, s.4(2)(a) of forging the endorsement on the cheque. Even if it were proper to infer the forgery of the cheque itself from the forgery of the endorsement, the jury had not been invited to consider the matter on that basis; it had been left to them

purely on the ground that to sign a fictitious name in endorsing the cheque amounted to forgery of the cheque. For these reasons the application for leave to appeal against the conviction on the first count would be treated as the appeal itself and the appeal allowed (page 141, line 39 page 142, line 5; page 142, lines 1233).

(2) With regard to any inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the appellant had failed to show that these were such that when...