AG v GH [2020] JCA 097 (01 June 2020)

AG v GH [2020] JCA 097 (01 June 2020)

Fraudulent conversion cannot be sustained where money paid under a contract for sale becomes the property of the vendor; entrustment requires property belonging beneficially to another, and in this case, there was no evidence capable of supporting entrustment; the Deputy Bailiff was correct to find no case to answer as a matter of law.

Citation
[2020] JCA 097
Parties
Appellant: HM Attorney General; Respondent: GH
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
01 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Reference Under Article 45 of the Court of Appeal (jersey) Law, 1961 / Post Acquittal Legal Reference Following Trial and Ruling of No Case to Answer
Outcome
Reference dismissed; Deputy Bailiff's ruling upheld
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Conversion, Entrustment, Beneficial Ownership, Contracts for Sale, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Fraudulent Conversion Entrustment Beneficial Ownership Contracts for Sale Jury Directions

Case Brief

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HM Attorney General

Appellant

GH

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Reference Under Article 45 of the Court of Appeal (jersey) Law, 1961 / Post Acquittal Legal Reference Following Trial and Ruling of No Case to Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether entrustment for a specific purpose requires direct evidence from the property owner or can be inferred by the jury
  2. 2 Whether a contract for sale precludes a finding of entrustment for fraudulent conversion
  3. 3 Whether the Deputy Bailiff was correct to find as a matter of law that entrustment could not arise on the evidence presented

Ratio Decidendi

Fraudulent conversion cannot be sustained where money paid under a contract for sale becomes the property of the vendor; entrustment requires property belonging beneficially to another, and in this case, there was no evidence capable of supporting entrustment; the Deputy Bailiff was correct to find no case to answer as a matter of law.

Court Disposition

Reference dismissed; Deputy Bailiff's ruling upheld

Orders

  • The court answers the three questions as follows: (a) Entrustment can be inferred and does not require direct evidence; (b) Contracts for sale do not preclude jury consideration of entrustment; (c) The Deputy Bailiff was correct to find no evidence of entrustment as a matter of law.