Federal Supreme Court quashes Full Court ruling
THE Federal Supreme Court in its Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction in 1960 overturned a ruling by the British Guiana Full Court and set aside a conviction for simple larceny against a man who was charged with the theft of a Money Order. The Court, constituted by Chief Justice Hallinan and Justices Lewis and Marnan, held that the conviction was bad because the money order could not be the subject of simple larceny, which was a common law offence.
The appellant, Dowden, who was convicted by a magistrate of the theft of a money order, was charged under Section 164 of  the Criminal Law (Offences) Ordinance,  Chapter 10 {B.G},  which  provides that everyone  who commits  simple larceny or any felony  by the Ordinance  made punishable, like simple  larceny,  shall, on  conviction  thereof  (except in the cases otherwise provided for), be liable to penal servitude for three years.
Section 178  makes the stealing, inter alia,  of a valuable security other than a document of title to lands, a felony of the same nature and in the same degree, and punishable  in the same manner as the stealing of a chattel of like value.
The Federal Supreme Court referred to eight (8) cases in arriving at its conclusion.      The Full Court had affirmed the decision of the magistrate, resulting in the appellant appealing against the former’s decision affirming the conviction of larceny of a valuable security.
Attorney-at-law Mr. K. Persaud appeared for the appellant, while Mr.  E. A. Ramao, then Acting Senior Crown Counsel, represented the Crown.
At the hearing, Justice A.M. Lewis, who delivered the judgment of the Federal Supreme Court, said:
“This is an appeal from an Order of the Full Court  of the Supreme Court  of British Guiana  dismissing an appeal  against the conviction  of the appellant  on February 20,  1960,  by the Magistrate  of  the Corentyne Judicial District  on a charge of simple larceny, contrary to Section  164  of the Criminal Law (Offences) Ordinance, Chapter 10 {B.G.},  the particulars of offence being  that the appellant  ‘stole one money order for $20.40, property of Frederick Ross.’”
According to His Honour: “The information was heard  summarily  with the appellant’s consent,  and at the close of the case for the prosecution, his counsel submitted  that the  charge under Section 164 was bad in law, and that he could not be convicted  under that section  of larceny  of a valuable security, this being a statutory offence created by Section 178 of the same Ordinance. His objection was overruled by the Magistrate, and this ruling was upheld by the Full Court.
“There was ample evidence to support the particulars of the charge, and, in this respect, the appeal is entirely unmeritorious.   The only question for decision, therefore, is whether the conviction for larceny of a valuable security under Section 164 is good in law.”
Continuing with his summation, Justice Lewis said:
“Counsel  for the Crown supported the conviction, on the ground that  Section 178 does not create an offence, but merely declares that a person guilty of stealing a valuable security will be guilty of a felony, and punishable in the same way as if he had stolen a chattel.”
Noting that it was necessary to consider the relevant  provisions  of the Ordinance, which came into force on March 1, 1894, Justice Lewis said:
“By Section 2, ‘valuable security’ is defined and includes a Post Office money order;  Section 3 applies to the Colony, subject to the  provisions  of the Ordinance or of any other statute in force, all the rules and principles  of the Common Law of England  relating  to indictable offences and other criminal matters, so far as they are applicable to the circumstances of the Colony.   Sections 164 and 178 are respectively as follows:
“164:  Everyone who commits simple larceny, or any felony hereby made punishable  like simple larceny, shall, on conviction thereof  (except in the cases  hereinafter otherwise provided for), be liable to penal servitude for three years.
“178: Everyone who steals, or for any fraudulent purpose destroys, cancels,  or obliterates the whole or any part of any valuable security  other than a document  of title  to lands, shall be guilty of felony.
“At common law, only personal goods of some practical value were the subject of larceny. Bonds, bills and other valuable securities were not larcenable, for being mere choices  in action, they were  considered to be of no intrinsic value.
“It is clear from the authorities cited above that Section 27 of the  Larceny Act, 1861 {U.K.} and Section 178 of Chapter 10 {B.G.} did create a substantive offence  of larceny of a chattel.
“It must be carefully noticed  that this section does not say that larceny of a valuable security  shall be simple larceny.  In this respect, it differs materially from Section 2 of the Larceny Act, 1016 {U.K.}.”
As he went on to explain: “The fact is that larceny, both at common-law and by statute, had  been consolidated  by the Larceny Act 1916 {UK}. Unlike Section 164,  however,  Section 178  created a new offence, an exception to the Common-Law rule that larceny  of valuable securities was not an offence, and it is only for the penalty that it may be necessary, in appropriate cases, to look to Section 164.”
He then said, in closing: “We have, therefore, with much reluctance, come to the conclusion that the conviction under Section 164 is bad in law, and must be quashed. The appeal is allowed, and the order of the court below is set aside.”