The High Court has ruled that a District Court judge was not correct in law to convict Edward Valentine of theft where the prosecution gave no evidence that the named owner, “Texas Homebase”, existed as a legal entity or owned the items in the charge.
Mr Justice Birmingham delivered the judgment on 25 June 2007, answering in the negative a question referred by Judge Ann Watkin through a case stated. The appeal concerned whether the evidence before the District Court was sufficient in law to support Valentine’s conviction under section 4 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001.
The charge alleged that Valentine stole a rotor saw and accessories from Texas Homebase on 15 June 2003. According to the case stated, a security guard testified that Valentine put the items under his jacket, left the store without paying, and was apprehended outside, where the items were recovered. Valentine did not give evidence.
At the close of the prosecution case, the defence sought a direction that there was no case to answer, arguing that there was no evidence of ownership or that the items had been taken without the owner’s permission. Judge Watkin rejected the application, reasoning that the evidence that the guard worked at the store and saw Valentine pass payment points without paying was sufficient to show that he did not own the items and had taken them without consent. She convicted him, finding the offence proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The High Court said a case stated cannot be used to determine factual disputes, but whether evidence in law supports each ingredient of an offence is a question of law. It considered whether there was evidence that the property belonged to the entity named in the charge and that the taking was without that owner’s consent.
The judgment noted that the case stated expressly recorded that no evidence had been given that Texas Homebase was a legal person or owned the articles. It said a certificate of incorporation was not essential: evidence that a company in fact carried on business as such could suffice. But, in this case, no information had been placed before the District Court about the nature or even the existence of the entity named as owner.
The High Court therefore concluded that Judge Watkin was not correct to convict on the evidence described. The judgment answered the legal question referred to it; it did not set out a separate order concerning the conviction or sentence.