The Queen v. Cumming

The Queen v. Cumming

Envelopes prepared by Post Office investigators and introduced into the sortation process were passing through activities conducted under the direction of the Postmaster General and therefore were "sent by post" within s.298(1)(a); the sender's intention that the letters be intercepted does not negate that they were sent by post for the purposes of the statute; conviction for stealing from the mail must be restored.

Citation
[1962] SCR 507
Parties
Appellant (crown): Her Majesty The Queen; Respondent (accused): Cora Cumming
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 April 1962
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction for stealing from the mail under s.298(1)(a)(i) restored; two justices dissented.
Legal Topics
Theft, Stealing From the Mail, Decoy Letters, Meaning of "sent by Post", Post Office Act Interpretation, Leave to Appeal
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Postal Law Procedural Law Statutory Interpretation Theft Stealing From the Mail Decoy Letters Meaning of "sent by Post" +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty The Queen

Appellant (crown)

Cora Cumming

Respondent (accused)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Final Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether letters prepared by postal investigators and placed in the sortation process were "sent by post" within s.298(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code
  2. 2 Whether the sender's intention to have decoy letters intercepted prevents them from being "sent by post"
  3. 3 Whether appeal against substituted conviction lies without leave

Ratio Decidendi

Envelopes prepared by Post Office investigators and introduced into the sortation process were passing through activities conducted under the direction of the Postmaster General and therefore were "sent by post" within s.298(1)(a); the sender's intention that the letters be intercepted does not negate that they were sent by post for the purposes of the statute; conviction for stealing from the mail must be restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction for stealing from the mail under s.298(1)(a)(i) restored; two justices dissented.

Orders

  • Conviction for the offence as charged (stealing anything sent by post after deposit and before delivery) restored.
  • Application to appeal against the substituted conviction quashed for lack of leave; leave to appeal not granted.