In the Court of Appeal (criminal Division) Between Regina - Appellant And Ackles - Respondent
The counsel seeks permission from the hon’ble court to present the facts and on behalf of the respondent.
Mr. Joshua Ackles, an is accountant, who is busy making online games since past 6 months and has find himself under the significant debts. Ackles is helpless and is unable to pay the mortgage, due to which he goes and approaches Sidney Shackleton, a local businessman. Ackles and Shackleton have been in contract since past two years and he has also been providing small and short-term loans. Ackles borrows £20,000 from Mr. Shackleton to get rid of his debts, and in return Shackleton asked Ackles to serve him by looking and taking care of his company accounts and also to prepare the annual reports, and in it Ackles has to detail about the company assets and liabilities.
Because the company was already running under loss Shackleton directed Ackles to detail the fake values of assets and liabilities. Ackles refused to do so, and in reply Shackleton threat him regarding his family, by saying “his family would find out about his gambling and his legs would be broken”, also was asked to stay at the house of Shackleton to prepare the fake detail because Shackleton can not risk the work and the situation to go to police. Ackles called his family to inform about the stay by telling them that “he is travelling to visit client and would be away for a week”. Further, for that entire week Ackles stayed at the estate of Shackleton an prepared the accounts with false details and on papers shows that the company was facing a lot of profit and was running successfully.
According to the charges of dishonesty framed against the respondent the act of dishonesty has been defines under section 11 of the Fraud Act 2006 which says that “if an individual is convicted of an offence under section 11 of the Act and is obtained for another or himself by any means of dishonest act and if subsection 2 of the section is breached”, whereas subsection 2 of section 11 says that any person who obtains services in any kind of breach in this subsection in case, they are present and are available on the ground that the payment has been made for in the respect of them, if a person gets them without placing any payment, any will or is made in respect of the people, if a person gets or obtains them without any payment having been done for in respect of them or without any payment made in complete and when people get it, the person itself knows that they are been made available in regards to the detailed paragraphs or they are not eligible to get payment and shall not get to be liable if they violate the law, or the payment shall not be completed, also if an individual is guilty of any offence under provided section shall be liable to face imprisonment of not exceeding 12 months or fine which shall not exceed the statutory or shall be liable for both, on the proving of indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding more than 5 years or to a fine or both.
In case of Ivey v Genting Casinos  A.C. 391, “Supreme Court provided the judgment, that a civil claim shockingly provided the practitioners of criminal law the formulated new test for determining the elements of the dishonesty for the use in both the matter civil as well as criminal”. Further, in the case of R v Ghosh  Q.B. 1053, had been extremely recognized by judges that the directing Juries whether an act of dishonesty was established or not? Therefore, the matter of dishonesty was not established. In the case of Ivey, it was held that the questions asked and mentioned in the Ghosh test which were all subjective, they did no longer given preference and was not valid. The court further held that “it must first ascertain the actual state of the individual's knowledge or belief as to the facts. It is reasonable or otherwise, the belief may be the evidence whether the belief was held, it is not an additional requirement that the belief should be reasonable”.
The act of Ackles is done under dishonest, also the mentioned facts and circumstances clearly show that the act of being dishonest has been committed on the part of Ackles towards Mr. Shackleton but under the pressure and fear of getting bodily injuries and losing the family. Under section 4 of the fraud Act 2006 which says that when fraud is done through the abuse of position is when a person is in breach, according to the section if the person occupies any such position which is to safeguard or is expected to safeguard the rule and regulations, or is not against any action related to the financial benefits and interests of a person or treated by dishonestly abuses to that particular position which intends the measures and mean of the power and position to earn the gains for the person itself or for another also to cause loss to the other or to exploit the another person to the risk of loss, also a person may be taken as having abused his position even though his conduct consisted of an omission rather than an activity or an act.
While the trial was going on the court gave the ruling over the case of R v Hasan  2 A.C. 467, the defense of duress must be taken down from the jury. The Judge accepted the findings on such association that existed and also was taken down or withdrew the defence. The judge directed the jury on the section 4 offense by informing them that "there is no doubt that Mr. Ackles was in a position where he was expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person”.
Ackles appeals to the hon’ble Court of Appeal that the grounds of conviction are not true also are not protected for which he particularly states that:
1. The judges has misconducted the proceeding and had confused the jury regarding the matter of dishonesty. The correct measures are provided under the guidelines of the case of R v Ghosh  Q.B. 1053.
2. The judge was unable to bring down the dureses defence by the jury. The defense should not be let down from the alleged association when it was with someone who was not previously known to be criminal”.
Therefore, the act of dishonesty does not direct the principle of a person being criminal before the commitment of the act or not, if a person has committed such act it shall be liable for the punishment. The court settled the matter by summarising the concern in the case of Ghosh test by saying it in the press summary by interpreting the case of Ivey the court held that if a person has committed an act of gambling or cheating should be in an additional legal element of dishonesty, it was held in the case and has been satisfied accordingly to the appeal it was dismissed.
The act of dishonesty is not done in with the intention and has not been in the self-concern, the commitment of act was in the influence and was just to save the family and getting rid of the fear of getting harmful bodily injury, this simply means that no intention or any conspiracy was present on the part of Mr. Ackles, the act of fraud committed by him was just to follow the ideas and orders of Mr. Shackleton, the compliance of work and offensive act was supposed and offered by him, the real offence is done by Mr. Shackleton and not Mr. Ackles.
The above matter has clearly stated that an act of dishonesty shall be of concern when it is done on the basis of abuse of position which was done by Ackles towards Mr. Shackleton. The decision of the court was according to the act committed by Ackles under sections 4 and 11 of the Fraud Act 2006. The principles laid down about dishonesty also prove that such an act of abusing by and to the position shall be considered as a crime and shall be punishable under the Act of Fraud. The principal objection is that the less a defendant's standard conform to the expectation of the society and are less likely held criminally responsible for their behaviour. Also, it is drawn that law should not excuse any person who has committed a mistake about the contemporary honesty standards the purpose of the criminal law is to set the acceptable standard of the behaviour towards society. Therefore, Ackles is not guilty intentionally he was forced to commit the crime.
In the light of issues raised arguments advanced and authorities citied may this hon’ble court be pleased to:
Declare and adjudge that respondent should be set free from the charges as the previous charges were put on and the offence was just done under the influence and pressure put by the appellant were actually for the offence appellant itself committed through the means of the respondent. Therefore, it is a request from the defendant and the counsel to the hon’ble court to provide the decision in the light of equity, justice and good concise.
Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Criminal Law Assignment Help
5 Stars to their Experts for my Assignment Assistance.
There experts have good understanding and knowledge of university guidelines. So, its better if you take their Assistance rather than doing the assignments on your own.
What you will benefit from their service -
I saved my Time (which I utilized for my exam studies) & Money, and my grades were HD (better than my last assignments done by me)
What you will lose using this service -
Unfortunately, i had only 36 hours to complete my assignment when I realized that it's better to focus on exams and pass this to some experts, and then I came across this website.
Kudos Guys!Jacob "
Proofreading and Editing$9.00Per Page
Consultation with Expert$35.00Per Hour
Live Session 1-on-1$40.00Per 30 min.
Doing your Assignment with our resources is simple, take Expert assistance to ensure HD Grades. Here you Go....