- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law- Goldman (1997) CA - Fraudulent Trading & Recklessness
Case Overview:
Case Overview:
- Defendant (D), director of a rare coin investment company, was convicted of fraudulent trading under s 458 of the Companies Act 1985.
- Prosecution alleged false representations regarding the coins' market value and marketability.
- D appealed, claiming misdirection regarding the meaning of recklessness and its distinction from dishonesty.
- Recklessness in Deception: Whether the Caldwell meaning of recklessness (a test involving objective failure to consider an obvious risk) is appropriate for deception offences.
- Dishonesty vs. Recklessness: Differentiating between dishonest intent and reckless disregard in deception cases.
- Deception can be Reckless or Deliberate: The offence of obtaining by deception can be committed through either recklessness or a deliberate act.
- Caldwell Recklessness Inappropriate: It is not appropriate to direct a jury based on the Caldwell definition of recklessness in deception cases.
- Dishonesty & Inadvertence are Mutually Exclusive: If deception requires dishonesty, it cannot be inadvertent. It must be:
- Deliberate, or
- Made with conscious indifference to a risk.
- Separate Issues: Dishonesty and recklessness are separate issues in deception cases. The judge must clarify this distinction during summing up.
- This case clarifies that the standard for recklessness in deception cases is higher than the objective Caldwell test.
- It emphasizes the subjective element of dishonesty and awareness of risk in deception offences.
- It highlights the importance of clear jury instructions that distinguish between dishonesty and recklessness.
0 Comments