He went on to remind them that the cheque had not been paid on presentation. He then told the jury what an attempt was, and concluded by saying "The dishonesty, I say, depends on all of the circumstances and you simply apply those standards.

What those directions did not say was the following. In relation to the defendant's state of mind, you cannot convict her unless you are sure that at the time the cheque was presented to the travel agency she knew, or at least believed, that it would not be met on presentation, and that means that you must be sure of two things: first, that she knew, or at least believed, that the account was not in credit and would not be in credit when the cheque was presented, and, secondly, that she knew or believed that the bank had not granted any facility to overdraw.

The nearest the judge came to telling the jury that they had to be sure of those elements before they could convict was when he was reviewing the evidence of the bank official and said:
"Is it possible that Mrs. Palfreyman believed that the cheque for £200 delivered on 21st October was a good and valid order and would be met on first representation in the light of that list?"
That list, we interpreted, was a list of unpaid items which the bank had prepared and sent to Mr. and Mrs. Palfreyman. Continuing, the judge said:

"The obvious answer is, "Certainly not." But Mrs. Palfreyman says, and her case is, that she did believe that it would be met because she says a further overdraft had been agreed."
He went on to refer to the evidence that she had given about the offer of a further overdraft dated 1st September which she or her husband had, she said, altered as a result of a conversation on 1st October with the bank.

Counsel for the Crown submits that those remarks were sufficient to alert the jury to that of which they had to be sure in relation to Mrs. Palfreyman's state of mind.

We do not accept that submission. The evidence given in this case was of some complexity. Mrs. Palfreyman had concentrated in her evidence upon her assertions that the bank had agreed to continue to provide overdraft facilities, but she also said in evidence something which suggested that she believed, or may have believed, that the account was sufficiently in credit to enable the £200 to be paid. In our view, the judge, not when reviewing the evidence, but when recounting to the jury the essential elements of which they had to be sure, should have spelt out a direction on the lines we have indicated. He did not do so. In our view, therefore, the conviction is unsafe and the appeal against it must be allowed.

In the circumstances, it is not necessary to refer to the other grounds of appeal which were advanced.

___________________________


© 1996 Crown Copyright