Men to be sentenced for counterfeit currency
Two defendants found guilty of possessing counterfeit US currency appeared in Summary Court for sentencing last week.
Attorneys for Curtis J. Connolly, 30, and Godfrey Adrian Brandt, 26, referred to the offence as an unfortunate mistake. They submitted references setting out the defendants’ good character and career prospects in the prison service.
They then asked that pre-sentence reports be requested, so the matter was adjourned until 13 October.
Magistrate Margaret Ramsay-Hale indicated that a request for such reports did not guarantee that the defendants would not get a custodial sentence.
The magistrate said that when she heard all the glowing references she thought that, rather than lock up the defendants for their offence, she should lock them up for disappointing their family and friends and forgetting everything they had been taught.
‘Men with your chances ought never to come before the court,’ she told them, calling it an absolute disgrace that they were there.
She said their families and the community had embraced them, raised them, promoted them and given them the respect they had earned. ‘Then to disappoint is an even greater offence than the offence itself,’ she declared.
Not guilty pleas
The men were charged in connection with 14 counterfeit US$100 notes found in Brandt’s car in March 2004. They pleaded not guilty. Trial was held in August this year and Magistrate Ramsay-Hale delivered her judgment on 8 September.
Crown Counsel Toyin Salako conducted the case for the prosecution.
Norman Hill QC, instructed by Attorney Steve McField, represented Connolly. Brandt was defended by Attorney John Furniss.
The evidence was that police officers went to Brandt’s house and requested a search under the Misuse of Drugs Law. They did not find any drugs anywhere, but in Brandt’s car they found the counterfeit notes.
During the previous month, Connolly had been borrowing Brandt’s car while his own vehicle was being repaired. He made admissions in his interview with police, but the magistrate pointed out that whatever Connolly said was not evidence against Brandt.
Connolly had said that he came across the notes in the car when he looked for some change to pay for a pack of cigarettes. He said he had asked Brandt about it and Brandt told him not to use the notes because they were not real.
Connolly acknowledged handling the notes on one occasion – showing them off to a young lady he had gone out with.
Attorneys for both defendants had argued that there was no case to answer. Mr. Hill said that Connolly’s mere knowledge of the existence of the notes in Brandt’s car could not amount to possession. There was no evidence he had custody or control of the counterfeit currency, so he could not have legal possession.
Mr. Furniss said the notes should not be admitted as evidence because they were found in an improper search. He suggested that the officers knew about the notes through the young lady Connolly had gone out with and they were using drugs as an excuse to search without getting a warrant.
Ms Salako pointed out that Connolly on his own admission did take possession of the notes on at least one occasion. For Brandt, the only inference was that the notes got into his car because he put them there.
Possessing and owning
In her judgment, the magistrate spent time defining possession. She quoted the UK Law Commission: Custody means physical custody and control imports the notion of the power to direct what shall be done with the things in question.
Ownership and possession are two different things, she pointed out. Connolly had both custody and control of the counterfeit currency just as he had custody and control of the vehicle. It did not matter that he did not intend to deal with the notes, other than by showing them off.
‘What is relevant is that he could have. There can be no challenge to the finding that he had the power to deal with the counterfeit currency on each occasion that he had physical custody of it,’ the magistrate said.
With respect to Brandt, the magistrate said there was no suggestion that the police officer lied when he gave evidence that he had received a tip about Brandt being in possession of ganja. There were some contradictions with another officer, but as a whole, and given his demeanour under oath, the magistrate said she accepted the officer’s evidence.
The court was entitled to infer that the owner of the car had knowledge of the presence of the counterfeit money. But the Crown also relied on the admission made by the defendant to the officer who found it. The magistrate accepted the evidence of the officer.
In their mitigation, attorneys emphasised that there was no question of either Brandt or Connolly using the counterfeit notes.
Pullout:
‘Men with your chances ought never to come before the court.’
– Magistrate Margaret Ramsay-Hale
Related Videos
