False documents

[Nemo]

I appreciate that the production of false documents to persons entitled to see them is a crime/illegal, but is it illegal to own such documents if they are not used - ie driving licence, bus pass, bills, etc ?

[DrBunsenHoneydew]

How did you come to "own" them but for an unlawful transaction?

It would not be unlawful to be "in possession" of them if you found them in the street and were taking them to the police station. But to "keep" them even if not used would be questionable, as the are potentially of value to the rightful owner.

[stevensfo]

If you're not using forged/false documents to commit fraud, I don't see how it could possibly be a crime.

Similar to Painting-by-numbers. I did this many years ago and happily produced forged Rembrandts etc, but didn't dare turn up at Sotheby's to claim they were originals!

During a long problem with burglaries in the area, I was advised to make a 'Burglar Bluff Box' containing stuff that a burglar would be happy with, kept somewhere he'd find it quickly to avoid him searching further. Where we live, most burglaries are at 3am and they move fast! With pieces of card, a photocopier and laminator, I had great fun forging an ID card, my driving licence and Jewellery receipts wrapped around small boxes containing cheap trinkets together with some cash. Fortunately I never needed them.

Steve

[redsturgeon]

This would seem to be the relevant section from the Fraud Act.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/fraud_act/

Possession of articles for use in fraud (Section 6)
The defendant:

had possession or control of;
an article;
for use in the course of or in connection with any fraud.
The wording draws on Section 25 of the Theft Act 1968. The proof required is that the Defendant had the article for the purpose or with the intention that it be used in the course of or in connection with an offence.

A general intention that he or another will commit fraud (meaning an offence under Sections 1-4 of the Act) will suffice. In R v Ellames 60 Cr App R. 7 (CA) the Court of Appeal said:

"In our view, to establish an offence under Section 25 (1) the prosecution must prove that the Defendant was in possession of the article, and intended the article to be used in the course of or in connection with some future burglary, theft or cheat. But it is not necessary to prove that he intended it to be used in the course of or in connection with any specific burglary, theft or cheat; it is enough to prove a general intention to use it for some burglary, theft or cheat; we think that this view is supported by the use of the word "any" in Section 25 (1). Nor, in our view, is it necessary to provide that the defendant intended to use it himself; it will be enough to prove that he had it with him with the intention that it should be used by someone else."

Section 6 will apply in any case where "Going equipped to cheat" would previously have been charged.

The principal distinction between Section 25 and Section 6 is that Section 6 does not require the defendant to be away from his place of abode.

There is no defence of "reasonable excuse". Those who are, in particular, properly in possession of or involved in the development of computer software or other items for use to test the security of computer or security systems must rely on their lack of intention that the items or programmes are "for use in the course of or in connection with any fraud." Prosecutors will be alert to such circumstances and the possible abuses.

[melonfool]

This seems relevant:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/201 ... /6/enacted

"6Possession of false identity documents etc without reasonable excuse

(1)It is an offence for a person (“P”), without reasonable excuse, to have in P’s possession or under P’s control—

(a)an identity document that is false,"

More within the Act.

Mel

[Slarti]

How did you come to "own" them but for an unlawful transaction?

It would not be unlawful to be "in possession" of them if you found them in the street and were taking them to the police station. But to "keep" them even if not used would be questionable, as the are potentially of value to the rightful owner.

Before smart phones I always had a photocopy of driving licence, prescription, motor insurance, travel insurance, passport and MOT certificate with me when away from home, carried separately from the real ones (assuming I'm in my own car) in case of loss.

These days I have copies on my phone and so don't need the paper copies.

Slarti

[Nemo]

Thanks for the info - by accident I came across this site and just wondered:

(link removed)

Moderator Message:
Link to website removed. In my view it is not a good idea for LF to have such links on the site (chas49)

[DrBunsenHoneydew]

Thanks for the info - by accident I came across this site and just wondered:

Moderator Message:
link removed from quoted post above(chas49)

As long as you didn't intend to deceive when using these imitation cards, no real problem I guess.
But if you used the one that looks like a driver's licence when stopped by a policeman you'll be in deep doo-doo !

[Lootman]

As long as you didn't intend to deceive when using these imitation cards, no real problem I guess. But if you used the one that looks like a driver's licence when stopped by a policeman you'll be in deep doo-doo !

Yes, the citation that RedSturgeon gave makes it fairly clear that the mere possession of a fake document does not meet the burden for a criminal prosecution. There also has to be an intent to use it for a fraudulent purpose. And it would hard to make a case for fraudulent intent unless you actually tried to use it in a deception.

That said, I suspect there might be exceptions for things like printing counterfeit money or cheques, where mere possession might be a crime. Although even then if they were really bad copies that nobody would ever accept, you could probably argue it was for playing Monopoly with.

If I want to mock up a Slovenian driving license as a piece of wall art, I'm pretty certain I won't get into trouble.

[melonfool]

As long as you didn't intend to deceive when using these imitation cards, no real problem I guess. But if you used the one that looks like a driver's licence when stopped by a policeman you'll be in deep doo-doo !

Yes, the citation that RedSturgeon gave makes it fairly clear that the mere possession of a fake document does not meet the burden for a criminal prosecution. There also has to be an intent to use it for a fraudulent purpose. And it would hard to make a case for fraudulent intent unless you actually tried to use it in a deception.

That said, I suspect there might be exceptions for things like printing counterfeit money or cheques, where mere possession might be a crime. Although even then if they were really bad copies that nobody would ever accept, you could probably argue it was for playing Monopoly with.

If I want to mock up a Slovenian driving license as a piece of wall art, I'm pretty certain I won't get into trouble.

Except:

1) the legislation I linked to shows there is no intent required, but to avoid a charge you have to have a 'reasonable excuse' (copies of your own docs in case they get lost when traveling would probably be OK here)

2) the Forgeries Act covers coin, notes, stamps etc:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/45/contents

it's not hard to look up legislation, the govt handily puts it all in one place. So we have no need to 'suspect' at all, we can just check

Mel

[Lootman]

the legislation I linked to shows there is no intent required, but to avoid a charge you have to have a 'reasonable excuse' (copies of your own docs in case they get lost when traveling would probably be OK here)

But the legislation that RedSturgeon linked to indicates that there needs to be intent as well, specifically here:

This would seem to be the relevant section from the Fraud Act.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/fraud_act/

Possession of articles for use in fraud (Section 6)
The defendant:

had possession or control of;
an article;
for use in the course of or in connection with any fraud.
The wording draws on Section 25 of the Theft Act 1968. The proof required is that the Defendant had the article for the purpose or with the intention that it be used in the course of or in connection with an offence.

A general intention that he or another will commit fraud (meaning an offence under Sections 1-4 of the Act) will suffice. In R v Ellames 60 Cr App R. 7 (CA) the Court of Appeal said:

"In our view, to establish an offence under Section 25 (1) the prosecution must prove that the Defendant was in possession of the article, and intended the article to be used in the course of or in connection with some future burglary, theft or cheat.

Of course, it's not unusual for laws to conflict with each other.

Since criminal prosecutions in general require proof of a criminal intent, it seems consistent that it would be required here as well. And I'm not sure that a person so accused needs to make a "reasonable excuse" because he doesn't have to say anything at all. The prosecution has to show and prove intent. The accused doesn't have to prove a lack of intent. That is explicitly stated in RedSturgeon's citation and, anyway, it's hard to prove a negative.

[melonfool]

What RS linked to was not the actual legislation though. It was cps interpretation - and it was to do with The Fraud Act.

I think the Act I posted trumps it as it is specifically about fake documentation, not anything to do with fraud.

"Since criminal prosecutions in general require proof of a criminal intent, it seems consistent that it would be required here as well."

Unless the legislation says it does not. And there are numerous laws where no intent is required - carrying a knife is the most commonly referred to one.

"And I'm not sure that a person so accused needs to make a "reasonable excuse" because he doesn't have to say anything at all."

Except where the legislation says it is an offence unless you have 'reasonable excuse', then it would be stupid not to say anything, no? I mean, if you had such an excuse. If not, then quite right, shut up!

"The prosecution has to show and prove intent."

They specifically DO NOT have to under the Act I quoted.

" That is explicitly stated in RedSturgeon's citation and, anyway, it's hard to prove a negative."

You don't get to choose what law you are charged under, the CPS does that. And they can charge under more than one. So, if you were carrying fake documents they would charge you under the Act I posted I would imagine.

It is hard to prove a negative - hence you have to show your 'reasonable excuse'.

Mel

[Lootman]

As always, it would depend on the circumstances. If I paint a replica of the Mona Lisa and stick it on my wall, I'm not going to be found guilty of theft, fraud or counterfeiting. If I try and pass it off at an art auction, I might be, unless it was laughably bad anyway which in my case it would be. So I think the common sense notion of intent can be reasonably inferred or not by a jury who would find accordingly, depending on the facts .

And with the already noted exception for legal tender, which really is a special case.

The more general question about proving intent and the right to silence is a broader issue. You're correct that the government has encroached on the fairly basic right of an accused to silence and non-incrimination, as evidenced by the revised wording of the police caution for instance. Personally, as a juror, I'd need more than just silent possession to convict. I'd need a plausible motive and narrative. If you're walking down the street with that fake Slovenian driving license, I'm going to acquit unless there is more to it.

[Lootman]

I appreciate that the production of false documents to persons entitled to see them is a crime/illegal, but is it illegal to own such documents if they are not used - ie driving licence, bus pass, bills, etc ?

As discussed elsewhere, I think the answer is "it depends".

I've mostly seen examples of this with fake id so that underage teens can drink. My children all had impeccable-looking fake id's from the age of about 15 which they used to drink in pubs, buy beer in shops etc. They ordered them off the internet for a few quid and they looked authentic. My youngest one even used it to get a drink in the US, where the drinking age is 21, when he wasn't even old enough to drink in the UK!

As a parent, I never worried that they were going to get into trouble with them. The worst that would happen is that they'd be refused a drink and asked to leave.

Ironically, my boys also had another fake ID showing that they were younger than they were, for the purpose of getting a child fare on the bus. I worried a little more about that, while also admiring their sheer chutzpah. And had they been caught with both fake ID's at the same time, they'd have had some explaining to do. But it never happened.

[Clitheroekid]

Yes, the citation that RedSturgeon gave makes it fairly clear that the mere possession of a fake document does not meet the burden for a criminal prosecution. There also has to be an intent to use it for a fraudulent purpose.

But as Melonfool has correctly pointed out there is other legislation that does make "the mere possession of a fake document" a criminal offence, namely the Identity Documents Act 2010.

This quite clearly states that unless you have a "reasonable excuse" it's an offence simply to be in possession of fake identity documents. There is no need to prove "intent to use it for a fraudulent purpose."

I must admit that I was blissfully unaware of the Act, but its terms are pretty drastic.

Ironically, my boys also had another fake ID showing that they were younger than they were, for the purpose of getting a child fare on the bus. I worried a little more about that, while also admiring their sheer chutzpah.

Chutzpah? It's just fraudulent, not a quality that's generally considered admirable.

[Lootman]

I must admit that I was blissfully unaware of the Act, but its terms are pretty drastic.

Drastic indeed, which raises the spectre of jury nullification.

There are of course various laws that make possession illegal. Obvious examples are weapons and drugs i.e. things that are inherently dangerous. But even so, there is a huge difference between, say, possessing a tab of LSD and possessing 10,000 tabs of LSD. The former indicates the minor crime of recreational drug taking. The latter indicates that you are importing, making or selling illegal drugs.

Now of course a document is not inherently dangerous in the same way. So whilst laws may be written to make mere possession illegal, it's clear that RedSturgeon's reference indicates that further evidence of criminal intent is needed to prosecute a serious crime. If all the "crime" is is possession of a library card where you have changed the expiry date, or a fake ID to get a drink in your local pub, then it's more of a documentary infraction than a serious crime. In other news, I was once late taxing my car.

Ironically, my boys also had another fake ID showing that they were younger than they were, for the purpose of getting a child fare on the bus. I worried a little more about that, while also admiring their sheer chutzpah.

Chutzpah? It's just fraudulent, not a quality that's generally considered admirable.

It shows enterprise and an appetite for risk - qualities that will no doubt benefit them as they mature beyond such misdemeanours and progress through life. I could have taken the puritanical view that every tiny transgression is an affront to common decency. But if I were that kind of parent then they would not have felt free to talk about such things with me, so I would have never known anyway. To this day they still tell me things that they won't tell their mother.

So I prefer to be a non-judgemental parent and enjoy a closer more honest relationship with my children. Reasonable people and parents can surely differ about that.

[Gengulphus]

Of course, it's not unusual for laws to conflict with each other.

Maybe not, but there's no conflict here.

Redsturgeon's link says that showing someone committed an offence under the Fraud Act 2006 requires proof of intent to commit fraud.

Mel's link indicates that showing someone committed an offence under the Identity Documents Act 2010 does not require proof of any intent. (That indication is by omission rather than an explicit statement to that effect, but that's the only general way that the absence of a need to prove something can appear in legislation - it's simply not practical for the laws concerned to state all the things that don't need to be proved!)

If someone possesses a false identity document without the intent to commit fraud, the Fraud Act 2006 fails to say that they committed an offence and (unless they have a "reasonable excuse") the Identity Documents Act 2010 says that they committed an offence. There's no conflict there, any more than there is if I make a post saying something and another Fool fails to make such a post.

There would be a conflict if one Act said that someone commits an offence and another said that they don't commit an offence, but that's a different situation. And it's one that generally won't occur, because laws generally aren't written to contain blanket statements that someone doesn't commit an offence. (Statements along the lines of "A person does not commit an offence under this Act if ...", yes, but that clearly wouldn't be in conflict with a statement in another Act that they do commit an offence.)

Gengulphus

[Lootman]

Mel's link indicates that showing someone committed an offence under the Identity Documents Act 2010 does not require proof of any intent. (That indication is by omission rather than an explicit statement to that effect, but that's the only general way that the absence of a need to prove something can appear in legislation - it's simply not practical for the laws concerned to state all the things that don't need to be proved!)

I sort of half agree. The half I agree with is that there appears to have been a law written that indicates that mere possession is sufficient probable cause for an attempted prosecution. And that is hardly surprising given that there are laws against the possession of weapons, illegal drugs etc., as I previously noted.

Where this is a little different is that, unlike drugs and weapons, a document is not a naturally or intrinsically dangerous item, and so a requirement to show intent or motive doesn't seem unreasonable. But of course that could be satisfied by showing that the intent was merely to carry the said weapon/drug/document rather than the intent or motive to use it or do harm with it.

But it's still a matter of degree. A fake document that is never used, which is what the OP clearly stated, is a minor transgression and unlikely in practice to be prosecuted. Nor my kids' fake ID's for pubs. A fake passport used to illegally enter the UK or open a bank account for nefarious purposes would be orders of magnitude more serious.

So I'm still struggling to understand a situation where the mere act of carrying a forged document, without malicious intent, has led to a non-trivial prosecution but if you know of such a case I'd be interested to read it. Otherwise I suspect this might have been a catch-all provision of some anti-terrorist legislation that is unlikely to affect the average innocent Lemon, or son thereof .

[Alaric]

Mel's link indicates that showing someone committed an offence under the Identity Documents Act 2010 does not require proof of any intent.

That's the Coalition's Act to scrap Identity Cards. Were some in the Civil Service peeved at the scrapping of their Identity Card control mechanism, that they smuggled in some strict liability stuff in its repeal?

[melonfool]

You are confusing what the law says and what the sentencing guidelines say.

As you have noted, carrying one pill of some drug could be a lesser crime than carrying a kilo. Though there are separate crimes (possession, and possession with intent to supply) the carrying is unlawful whether it is one or several - it is probably easier to prove intent to supply with a large quantity, but if you had one and when it was found you said "oh, I just bought it from a mate to give to my sister"* bang - intent to supply, even just one.

Where the 'degrees' come in is in the sentencing guidelines.

The CPS publishes them, so you can look them up and see what they suggest for people who possess forgeries of the Mona Lisa.

Mel

* this happened on Coronation Street, who says soaps aren't educational?**
** my dad!