Topic 4 - FORGERY AND UTTERING Flashcards
R v Closs
It was wrongly held that an artwork does not constitute document and neither an inscription on it a writing within the scope of the offence of forgery.
R v Smith
The accused packed his backing flour in a manger that resembles another popular brand. The package was held not to constitute a document or writing within the scope of the offence of forgery.
Also, the mere fact that it looks like the other brand’s product doesn’t make it “tell a lie about itself”.
Also, the definition of document under the Nigeria CC expressly excludes trademark.
R v Dauce
An artwork falls within the scope of forgery.
R v Pryse-Hughes
An artwork falls within the scope of forgery.
Etim v The Queen
An untrue statement in a writ amounts to forgery.
R v Domingo
The accused opened an account with Barclays Bank to a business man and he signed as A.O. Domingo. The bank requested for some documents and an identity card to authenticate his identity. The accused also signed a mandate authorizing one Mr James to operate the account. It was later found that all the characters and signatures were fictitious and formed by the accused. If bank had known this, they would not have opened the account, as they thought they were dealing with someone else. Held:
The bank had acted in the belief that the documents were genuine and it would not have done so but for the false information on the documents. The appellant was convicted. If someone makes a document in an assumed name and passes it as a document made, not by himself, but by someone else, real/fictitious, it would be forgery.
Contrast with Odu v The State, (1965) 1 All NLR 25
R v Domingo
The accused opened an account with Barclays Bank to a business man and he signed as A.O. Domingo. The bank requested for some documents and an identity card to authenticate his identity. The accused also signed a mandate authorizing one Mr James to operate the account. It was later found that all the characters and signatures were fictitious and formed by the accused. If bank had known this, they would not have opened the account, as they thought they were dealing with someone else. Held:
The bank had acted in the belief that the documents were genuine and it would not have done so but for the false information on the documents. The appellant was convicted. If someone makes a document in an assumed name and passes it as a document made, not by himself, but by someone else, real/fictitious, it would be forgery.
Contrast with Odu v The State, (1965) 1 All NLR 25
Odu v The State, (1965) 1 All NLR 25
The appellant endorsed a cheque which was not meant for him in the name of a fictitious person. He opened an account at the bank signing the specimen signature card and the paying-in slip in the name of the fictitious person.
Held:
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction holding that as the appellant presented the two documents as having made by himself, the fact that he did so a false name did not mean that the documents purported to be made by some person who did not exist. Even if the bank officials did not know his true name, the document did not purport to be made by or on behalf of anyone but the appellant. Comment - It would have been otherwise, if he makes the document in an assumed name and passes it is document not by himself, but by someone else, real or fictitious. The situation would be different where the accused induced another person that the name belongs to another who in fact does not exist.
Welham v DPP
The scope of the intent to commit fraud under common law was expanded to include both intent to cause financial and non-financial hardship.
Aina v Jinadu
It was held in a charge for forgery, the prosecution needs not prove intent to defraud but an intent to cause a third party to act upon the thing forged, to the prejudice of that person.
Consequently, the intent includes an intent to cause both financial and non-financial hardship to the third party.
Idowu v The State
The mens rea for forgery are;
1) Knowledge 2) Intent to…..
Principle 2: Where there are several offences of forgery, each act should be charged separately.
Nigerian Air force v James
The supreme court held that a false document is that which “tells a lie about itself”.
Nigerian Air force v James
The supreme court held that a false document is that which “tells a lie about itself”.
FRN v Amadi
The required mens rea for forgery could be presumed from the circumstance, eg, where the accused used the document to obtain money.
In this case, the accused was convicted.
Agbeyegbe v IGP
A mere signature could be held to be a forged material. The appellants were prison officials and they were convicted for forgery of a receipt on a voucher. When they signed voucher, receipt was not completed but this was held to be immaterial because of the time he signed. The voucher, he knew that it contained false information which was to be used to defraud the government. Held: It was held that signing of a document in the name of another makes the document false. The appellants were liable for forgery.
Akinbisade v The State, (2006) 17 NWLR (pt. 1007) p. 184 at 211
The appellant together with Mr. Okusanya fraudulently opened an account at the Cooperative Bank on the false authority of the Director of Internal Revenue, Ministry of Finance. Several lodgements and withdrawals were made into and out of the said account by the appellant and Mr. Okusanya in different assumed names. When the authorities of the bank became suspicious that the account was fraudulent, the appellant was arrested in the bank with the cheques totalling N915,000 with which she wanted to withdraw from the account. They were charged and convicted of forgery and uttering.
Mohammed v Wammako
It was held that the original of the certificate which was alleged to have been forged by the accused must be proved by a comparison with the original certificate of the school who issued the certificate.
Failure to do so was fatal and the accused was acquired.
Alale v The State
Niki Tobi on proving forgery by scientific means of handwriting experts.
Alake v The State
Niki Tobi on proving forgery by scientific means of handwriting experts.
Aituma v The State
It was held that where the prosecution failed to hirer a handwriting expert to confirm that the writing on the document, subject matter of forgery where the accused has pleaded innocent is fatal to the case… Accused was acquired on appeal.
Aituma v The State
It was held that where the prosecution failed to hirer a handwriting expert to confirm that the writing on the document, subject matter of forgery where the accused has pleaded innocent is fatal to the case… Accused was acquired on appeal.
Chukwuemeka v FRN
A party who has procured another to make a false document can also be charged for the offence of forgery itself.
The same decision was reached in Brilla Energy LTD v FRN
Chukwuemeka v FRN
A party who has procured another to make a false document can also be charged for the offence of forgery itself.
The same decision was reached in Brilla Energy LTD v FRN
Awobutu v State
The offence of forgery is complete upon the making of a false document and need not to be published or dealt with.
I
