Forgery and fa!se statements
Page 66
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
HE Royal Society of Arts' sylla)us for the CPC examination reluires students to "define and tate the consequences of forgiry and false statements". This s no mean task, and though it is inlikely that examiners expect his topic to be studied in great lepth; a look at the law on this ,ubject will be of help.
Basically, forgery is the makng of a false document so that it nay be used as genuine. For oad traffic matters this offence s dealt with, in the main, by Secion 169 of the Road Traffic Act 972.
This section deals with any icence issued under the Act; est certificates; plating certifi:ates and plates; Minister's ap)roval certificate; ' records of fehicle inspections and Type kpproval mark.
Also covered are certificates is to the result of a test compeence to drive; badges or certifiiates issued as to result of a test )f competency to drive; badges )1certificates issued to regisered driving instructors; certifi:ates of insurance or security md international haulage )ermits.
The section makes it an ofence, with intent to deceive, to orge, or alter or use or lend or 3110w to be used any of these locuments, It is also an offence o make or have in one's posses;ion anything so closely resem)ling the genuine article as to be :alculated to deceive.
Section 233 of the Road Traffic ct 1960 makes similar provi;ions respecting psv documents Ind Section 234 of the same Act -nakes it an offence to alter any .?,ntry in any record relating to a )sv contract carriage journey. Section 86 of the Road Traffic egulation Act 1967 deals in a ;imilar way with parking-meter ickets and Section 26 of the iehicles (Excise) Act 1971 with -iumber plates and trade plates. The serious view which the aw takes of offences of this kind s reflected in the penalties dvhich courts can impose.
On indictment (ie before a judge and jury) there is a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment; summarily Cie in the magistrates' court) the maximum penalty is a £100 fine and/ or four months' imprisonment for an offence against the 1960 Act and a E200 fine for contravening the 1972 Act.
In these cases there must be an intent to deceive and it has been held that "to deceive is to induce a man to believe that a thing is true which is false and the person practising the deceit knows or believes it to be false".
There are many ways in which offences of this kind can be committed. Altering the date on a test certificate so that it expires at a later date; exhibiting a coloured label in the place of an excise licence; altering an insurance certificate so that it relates to another vehicle are just three examples of offences of this nature.
Hauliers have been prosecuted for forging permits for foreign operations.
An offence very similar to forgery is that of making a false statement and Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 deals with offences of this kind. It makes it an offence knowingly to make a false statement for the purpose of: (a) obtaining a licence (b) preventing the grant of a licence (c)• procuring imposition of a condition or limitation on a licence (d) securing registration of a person as an approved driving instructor (e) obtaining the grant of an international road haulage permit (for oneself or for others) (1) obtaining the grant of an international road haulage permit (for oneself or for others) (9)obtaining an excise licence (h) obtaining a certificate of insu rance.
It is also an offence, under the same section, knowingly to make a false statement concerning the remedying of defects found on a test or in any record required to be kept under the Act.
In R v Potter (1958)2 All ER51, W, a licensed driver, impersonated his brother A at a driving test, signed the examiner's journal as A and also the certificate of competency which he gained.
It was held he was guilty of forging these two entries and also of using a forged certificate to obtain a licence.
In Jones v Meat yard (1939) 1 All ER 140, it was decided that the question whether gain or ad vantage is derived from mat a false statement is immatE in considering whether an fence has been committed.
A case relating to the issur a test certificate is reported i v Evans (Stanley) (1964) 3 ..4/i 666. This case concerns a mo cycle but the same princ would apply if the tested veh was a van subject to the h type test.
B's motor cycle was repal at a garage by E and was E mined on November 16, 1 with a view to the issue of a • certificate. On December 1963, almost a month later, cycle was returned.to B and test certificate was issued, El tifying that the cycle had b tested and that, at the datE examination, the statutory quirements were complied w No date of examination I stated on the certificate, but date of issue was shown as cember 14, 1963. On this c the machine did not, in fact, fi the requirements. E testithat, though he issued the cer cate on December 14, 1963, the work had been done on cycle on November 16 of I year on which date it comp with the requirements.
It was held that though certificate did not expressly state, it was implied that the c dition of the cycle at the firm examination remained the sa as at the date of the issue of certificate, so that the certific was "false".
A police officer has v% powers to seize documents r duced to him under any IE requirements if he has reas able cause to believe an offe against any of the sections der discussion has been cr rnitted.
The person from whom document has been taken, if charged or if the documen not returned, must be st moned before a magistra court to account for his pos sion. The court can make order as to the disposal of document and award costs.