![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Ferdhaus, R. v [2010] EWCA Crim 220 (26 January 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2010/220.html Cite as: [2010] EWCA Crim 220 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Strand London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MRS JUSTICE SHARP DBE
SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND
____________________
R E G I N A | ||
v | ||
MOHAMMED MAHEE FERDHAUS |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr B Fitzgerald appeared on behalf of the Crown
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
(1) Someone would take out insurance on a car providing false details, such as false address, name, bank et cetera, over the telephone, so there was no need even to fill in even a proposal form. Payment could be made over the phone by credit card.
(2) The requested insurance was limited to third party, fire and theft. This meant that in the event that the car was involved in an accident that was the fault of AXA's insured driver, he or she would not be covered for the damage to their own car. Damage to the third party's company was of course covered.
(3) Not long after the insurance had been taken out AXA would be informed by its insured, giving false details, that a collision had occurred which was his fault and that a claim for damages would be made by the third party. This would typically involve the cost of repair of the third party's vehicle (or its pre-accident value if a total loss), the cost of recovery and storage whilst it was repaired, the cost of a replacement vehicle, such as a hire car, whilst the claim was being settled, and the cost of medical care if the third party or any of his or her passengers claimed to be injured.
"Consider also Ferdhaus's previous conduct, laying emphasis on the claims history of Mr Muhid Mier's BMW, and it was the schedule in relation to that particular vehicle. I will return to that in a moment - it is L761 GYH.
'Because of those histories it is more likely that he was involved than I', says Mr Hussain through [his counsel]. History in this context means propensity; in other words, a tendency or inclination to behave in a particular way, to make fraudulent insurance claims.
You should not conclude that Ferdhaus is guilty of any count on the indictment merely because he has been fraudulent in the past, if indeed you find to the relevant standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he has, for that does not mean he committed the offences in this case. If you find he had a propensity to commit fraud, you are entitled to take that into account, but it is only one factor and you should assess its significance in the light of all other evidence in the case."
"I would invite your Honour either to say that they are not relevant, or if your Honour is against me on that to say that they have limited relevance and the jury should approach them with care."
"In relation to many of those documents, of course, they have been culled from records, and the people who are compiling, did compile the records, have not been called, and so just as you have to exercise care in considering statements which have been read not by agreement but by force of circumstances, so be careful in your approach to that material as well."
The reference to statements that had been read "not by agreement" was a reference to two witnesses relevant to the bad character evidence whose evidence was not agreed but whose statements had been read pursuant to the provisions of the 2003 Act, they being outside the jurisdiction at the time; indeed, one of them was in prison in Italy. In each case the judge had warned the jury or reminded them that, although the statements were being read, the contents were not accepted and that there would have been cross-examination if the witnesses had been present to give their evidence in court.