The defendant was charged with fraud contrary to section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006 and with having in his possession or under his control an article for use in the course of or in connection with any fraud contrary to section 6(1) of the 2006 Act. The defendant, who carried on the business of doing landscaping work in gardens, contracted to do some work for the complainant, who subsequently complained to a Trading Standards authority about the work done. The prosecution case was that the defendant had set out to defraud the complainant and that he had failed to inform the complainant about his right to cancel the contract. The defendant denied dishonesty and relied on a document relating to the right of cancellation said to have been signed by the complainant. The complainant denied having signed that document. The prosecution asserted that the document had been created after the event to mask the fraud. The judge rejected a submission by the defendant that section 6(1) of the 2006 Act did not extend to include a document created after the event. The defendant was convicted on both charges. He appealed against conviction inter alia on the ground that the judge’s ruling in relation to section 6(1) was wrong.
On the appeal—
Held, appeal dismissed. Section 6(1) of the Fraud Act 2006 provided that a “person is guilty of an offence if he has in his possession or under his control any article for use in the course of or in connection with any fraud”. That wording was very similar to that found in section 25(1) of the Theft Act 1968 which provided that a “person shall be guilty of an offence if, when not at his place of abode, he has with him any article for use in the course of or in connection with any burglary or theft”. It was established that “has with him any article for use” in section 25 of the 1968 Act meant “has with him for the purpose or with the intention that they will be used”, so the intention to use necessarily related to use in the future, and that approach had been followed in relation to “any article for use” under section 6(1) of the 2006 Act. The words “in connection with” in section 6(1) of the 2006 Act had to add something in addition to “in the course of”. They were broad words and were sufficiently wide to include an article created after the commission of the offence to be used “in connection with” that offence. Accordingly, the judge had been right to reject the submission that section 6(1) could be of no application to an article created after the event.
John Farmer (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant, Andrew Smith.
Caroline Allison (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service, Appeals Unit) for the Crown.