KembaraXtra-Case Law-Governor of Pentonville Prison ex p Osman (1990) QBD

KembaraXtra-Case Law-Governor of Pentonville Prison ex p Osman (1990) QBD
I. Case Overview:

II. Background Facts:

Osman: Detained in England awaiting extradition to Hong Kong.
Charges in Hong Kong: Theft, fraud, bribery, and other offences.
Allegation: Osman, as chairman of company B, allegedly took bribes to authorize company B to loan money to company C.
Mechanism: Drawing on Company B's New York bank account.
English Committal: Magistrates committed Osman based on the act of theft of a debt, the debt being the money in the bank account owed by an American bank to company B, its customer.
Osman's Argument: English courts lacked jurisdiction; theft (if any) occurred in New York (where the bank withdrew funds), not Hong Kong (where Osman issued instructions via telex).

III. Issue:

Where did the appropriation (essential element of theft) take place? This determines whether the English court has jurisdiction over the case.

IV. Held:

Definition of Appropriation: "An appropriation is the adverse assumption of any of the owner's rights."
Owner's Rights: Includes the right of an owner of a debt to draw on the bank account.
Osman's Assumption: Osman assumed this right by dishonestly drawing a cheque on the account without authorisation.
Telex as Appropriation: Sending a telex instructing the bank to draw a cheque could amount to an appropriation if done without authority.
Location of Theft: Theft occurred in Hong Kong, where Osman telexed the American bank with his instructions.
Jurisdiction: The English court therefore has jurisdiction because the appropriation occurred in Hong Kong due to Osman's instructions from there.

LAW