R. v. John Nelson
Read the full judgment text of on BabelCite. was delivered on 17 January 1997.
1. On 29th March of last year, this applicant was convicted before Judge Kilgour in the District Court of five counts of obtaining property by deception and one count of attempting to do the same.
|
CACC000212A/1996 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 1996, No.212 (Criminal) _______________
_______________ Coram: Hon Litton V.-P., Bokhary J.A. & Sears J. in Court Date of hearing: 17 January 1997 Date of judgment: 17 January 1997 _______________ J U D G M E N T _______________ Sears J. (giving the judgment of the Court) : 1. On 29th March of last year, this applicant was convicted before Judge Kilgour in the District Court of five counts of obtaining property by deception and one count of attempting to do the same. 2. The charges involved three separate groups of victims who were apparently unknown to each other but complained separately to the police. The method by which the fraud was perpetrated was the same in all of the offences. Substantial businessmen would be contacted by persons claiming to have an interest in or representing the Central Bank of Nigeria, and it was suggested that there were large amounts of currency which had been brought to Hong Kong available for investment. The interest of the victims having been encouraged, a meeting was then set up with the potential victims by certain persons. In this particular case, it was said to be the applicant calling himself either John Nelson or Dr. Idris Mohammed, purporting to be a representative of the Central Bank of Nigeria. 3. Large amounts of cash were confirmed as being available in Hong Kong, and the victims were told that this large amount of cash had, for security reasons, been blackened by a photo process, but this process could be reversed and the money restored to its normal condition by the application of a special solution. How intelligent people could possibly believe this sort of story questions one's incredulity. Nevertheless, greed and gullibility are unfortunate characteristics of human nature. A demonstration would then be arranged in a hotel by the fraudster. Brought into the room was an aluminum suitcase which was said to contain large sums of US dollar bills. The room's lights would be dimmed, and in the darkness the case would be opened and one or more notes would be extracted and subjected to this amazing chemical process. When the lights went up, there was one or perhaps more than one rather soggy hundred dollar bill which in fact turned out to be genuine. 4. What then happened was that the victims would be persuaded that all they had to do was to purchase a bottle of this magic solution which could turn black pieces of paper into hundred dollar bills, but the bottles were rather expensive. Sometimes it was said that it would cost US$360,000 to purchase this type of liquid which could transform the paper into money. 5. In all of the charges, five completed and one uncompleted - similar stories were told by the victims and the deception practiced was similar. Eventually, the group of Japanese considering themselves to be the subject of the fraud had flown in from Japan a witness who gave evidence and who had in fact been the engineer of a US dollar note checker which had been sold to a number of Japanese banks. He met the applicant, whom he subsequently identified, money passed, and the following day the applicant was virtually arrested by a group of Japanese outside the bank. He was interviewed by the police. A number of matters were seized from him, such as a mobile telephone, various documents and a card with the name Dr. Mohammed on it but with the applicant's business telephone number in Nigeria written on it. 6. There was no doubt at all that all of the victims had property taken from them by deception. The only real issue before the judge was whether or not the prosecution had proved so that he was sure that it was this applicant who was Dr. Mohammed or John Nelson, the perpetrator of this fraud. The evidence consisted mainly of two matters. First, identification, and secondly, fingerprints which had been found on various wrappers and also on the case which had been used in the hotel bedroom. 7. The judge analysed in great detail the evidence of identification. He reminded himself of the standard directions given on identification, he found that there was positive identification by a number of witnesses and he recognised that there was another body of evidence dealing with the fingerprints. 8. The applicant gave evidence and his case quite simply was that he was not the person who was the author of these frauds. The judge evaluated all the evidence and came to the conclusion that the evidence against the applicant was overwhelming and he said this in his conclusion :
The judge found all the charges proved against this applicant. 9. Mr Haynes in his Grounds of Appeal seeks to question the judge's basic approach to this case. He says that there were a number of matters which indicate that the judge showed bias against the applicant. 10. In our judgment, these submissions are totally unfounded. The judge gave a lengthy and detailed analysis of all of the evidence, and the correct legal principles which he was adopting in analysing that evidence. His Reasons for Verdict were impeccable. He recognised certain weaknesses that were in the prosecution case and obviously took those into account. 11. Insofar therefore as any general attack is made by Mr Haynes, we would totally refute it. In our judgment, there was overwhelming evidence against this applicant. He was given a fair trial and we would dismiss this application.
Representation: Mr John Haynes, inst'd by M/s Haldanes, for Applicant Mr A. E. Schapel, for Crown Prosecutor/Respondent |