Alli Mohamed v. R., Crim. App. 233-A-67, 24/4/68, Platt J.

Alli Mohamed v. R., Crim. App. 233-A-67, 24/4/68, Platt J.

Accused entered into a contract to buy complainant’s motor vehicle, agreeing to pay the purchase price after he had approved the vehicle. He took delivery after certain defects were rectified, but made no payments (a subsequently offered part payment was refused), and kept the vehicle. accused was charged with theft (P.C. s. 265), and obtaining goods by false pretences (P.C. s. 302); he was convicted of theft, the magistrate dismissing the alternative count. On appeal, the Republic conceded that the theft conviction could not stand, but contended that the dismissed count would support a conviction.

            Held: (1) The Republic properly conceded that the facts would not support a conviction for theft because the property in the vehicle had passed by sale under the contract to accused when he accepted delivery and voiced no disapproval (Cap. 214 s. 20 rule 14) He could not steal his own property (2) The count of obtaining goods by false pretences was properly dismissed by the lower court. “A promise to do something in the future is not by itself a false pretence. But, such a promise may be coupled with a false pretence. Of existing fact, and where a promise in future expressly or impliedly contains a false statement of existing fact, the offence can be proved.” (Citing R. V. Dent, (1955) 39 Cr. App. R. 131) In Dent’s case it is made clear that the state of a man’s mind is not a fact a misrepresentation of “(1)t is a well known principle that in charging this offence the particulars of the charge must set out with sufficient particularity the existing statement of fact which is alleged to be false.” It is not sufficient to allege, as was done here, that appellant committed the offence “ by pretending that he was going to buy [the said vehicle].”