Smith, R v

Smith, R v

The Court held that it had jurisdiction to try the offences because a substantial measure of the criminal activity occurred in England, following the approach in Smith No. 1. The convictions under section 15 of the Theft Act 1968 could not stand due to the decision in Preddy, but the facts found by the jury...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Respondent: R; Appellant: Wallace Duncan Smith
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal on Reference From the Criminal Cases Review Commission
Outcome
Convictions on counts 3 and 4 quashed; substituted with convictions under section 1 of the Theft Act 1978; sentence affirmed as appropriate for substituted counts.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Obtaining Property by Deception, Obtaining Services by Deception, Substitution of Convictions, International Fraud
Criminal Law Jurisdiction Obtaining Property by Deception Obtaining Services by Deception Substitution of Convictions International Fraud

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 31 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Respondent

Wallace Duncan Smith

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal on Reference From the Criminal Cases Review Commission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction was exhausted by a previous appeal (functus officio)
  2. 2 Whether English courts had jurisdiction over the offences in counts 3 and 4
  3. 3 Whether convictions for obtaining property by deception could be substituted with convictions for obtaining services by deception

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that it had jurisdiction to try the offences because a substantial measure of the criminal activity occurred in England, following the approach in Smith No. 1. The convictions under section 15 of the Theft Act 1968 could not stand due to the decision in Preddy, but the facts found by the jury supported convictions for obtaining services by deception under section 1 of the Theft Act 1978. The Court exercised its power to substitute these convictions.

Court Disposition

Convictions on counts 3 and 4 quashed; substituted with convictions under section 1 of the Theft Act 1978; sentence affirmed as appropriate for substituted counts.

Orders

  • Convictions on counts 3 and 4 under section 15 of the Theft Act 1968 quashed.
  • Substitute convictions under section 1 of the Theft Act 1978 entered for counts 3 and 4.