Dowden v Liverpool

• Jurisdiction: Caribbean States
• Judge: Lewis, J.
• Judgment Date: 29 November 1960
• Court: Federal Supreme Court (West Indies)
• Date: 29 November 1960

Federal Supreme Court

Hallinan, C.J.;

Lewis, J.;

Marnan, J.

Dowden

and

Liverpool

K. Prasad for the appellant.

E. A. Roman, Ag. Senior Crown Counsel, for the Crown.

Criminal law - Larceny — Stealing a money order — Whether an offence at common law or only by virtue of statute — Criminal Law (Offences) Ordinance, Cap. 10, ss. 3, 164 and 178.

1 Lewis, J., delivered the judgment of the court: This is an appeal from an order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of British Guiana dismissing an appeal against the conviction of the appellant, on February 29, 1960, by the magistrate of the Corentyne Judicial District on a charge of simple larceny contrary to s. 164 of the Criminal Law (Offences) Ordinance, Cap. 10, the particulars of offence being that the appellant “stole one money order for $20.40 property of Frederick Ross”. The information was heard summarily with the appellant's consent, and at the close of the case for the prosecution his counsel submitted that the charge under s. 164 was bad in law, and that he could not be convicted under that section of larceny of a valuable security, this being a statutory offence created by s. 178 of the same Ordinance. His objection was overruled by the magistrate and this ruling was upheld by the Full Court.

2 There was ample evidence to support the particulars of the charge and in this respect the appeal is entirely unmeritorious. The only question for decision therefore is whether the conviction for larceny of a valuable security under s. 164 is good in law. Counsel for the Crown supported the conviction on the ground that s. 178 does not create an offence, but merely declares that a person guilty of stealing a valuable security will be guilty of a felony and punishable in the same way as if he had stolen a chattel. It is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Ordinance, which came into force on March 1, 1894.

3 By s. 2 “valuable security” is defined and includes a post office money order. Section 3 applies to the Colony, subject to the provisions of the Ordinance or of any other statute in force, all the rules and principles of the common law of England relating to indictable offences and other criminal matters, so far as they are applicable to the circumstances of the Colony.

4 Sections 164 and 178 are respectively as follows:

• “164. Everyone who commits simple larceny, or any felony hereby made punishable like simple larceny, shall on conviction thereof (except in the cases hereinafter otherwise provided for) be liable to penal servitude for three years.”

• “178. Everyone who steals, or for any fraudulent purpose destroys, cancels, or obliterates, the whole or any part of any valuable security, other than a document of title to lands, shall be guilty of felony, of the same nature and in the same degree, and punishable in the same manner, as if had he stolen any chattel of like value with the share, interest, or deposit to which the security so stolen relates, or with the money due on the security so stolen or secured thereby and remaining unsatisfied, or with the value of the goods or other valuable thing represented, mentioned or referred to in or by the security.”

5 At common law only personal goods of some practical value were the subject of larceny. Bonds, bills, and other valuable securities were not larcenable, for being mere choses in action they were considered to be of no intrinsic value: Calye's Case (1548), 8 Co. Rep. 33. Larceny of such documents was made punishable by 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 5,...