Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by knockknee, Nov 24, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Variously the Act says this

    "It is an OFFENCE to usean instrument which is false with the intention of inducing somebody to accept it as genuine and, by reason of so accepting it, to do or not to do some act to his own or another's prejudice."

    "A person guilty of an offence shall be liable to a term not exceeding ten years"

    "The meaning of INSTRUMENT (includes) any other device ON or in which information is recorded or stored by mechanical, electronic or other means"



    A military medal must be an instrument then ? For it records information by which, upon display, it conveys to other persons the information that its wearer acted in a meritorious way rewarded by the issue of the medal.


    Which would mean that, for example, someone who wears medals to which he is not entitled and any photos thereof are instruments, within the act, and if they result in someone else doing or not doing an act to their own or another prejudice the offence of using a false instrument would be complete.

    Surely an SAS stable belt if worn at Deal Barracks in 1982 to convey to another person the impression the wearer is in or of SAS would make the belt in the circustances a false instrument.

    And if someone like Royal Marine Corporal Simon C BELL as a result of being so misled particpiated to his own later prejudice in a training mission to Belgium the offence becomes comnplete at the time the prejudice manifests.

    And so so and so on and so on

    What do you reckon Mr SHORTT ?
     
  2. An interesting subject that would keep lawyers happy for ages. But what about wearing a medal that is genuine, but issued to someone else? The medal is genuine and therefore neither a forgery nor a counterfeit.
     
  3. Might come under this as it is being used to fraudulently claim service where there was none.
     
  4. Well that is rather the point. For example if you had a genuine certificate but changed the name on it then the certificate would become false. In that case the change of name makes a genuine certificate false. In the case of a medal the change of wearer makes it false.

    That is my argument.
     
  5. If the argument holds then we could seek to establish a prima facie case against Mr SHORTT of an offence carrying up to ten years imprisonment without going beyond the assets of ARSSE. For we have members who knew Mr Shortt and were taken in by him and later fell out with him when they concluded that he is a walt.

    The thing is if whilst duped they did acts which they would not otherwise have done and they now regret that then the deceptive use of uniforms, membership cards, medals etc misled them to their prejudice.

    I would say that his eventual appointment to consultancy on Cabinet Security. His role (if true) in advising public authority on emergency planning and so forth, if in any way acted upon by authority, were acts to the prejudice of us all.

    As it happens one of the Royal Marines who went as instructor on the Belgian training mission 1982 (see Shortty threads) earlier this year exchanged emails with me. He made it clear that his position is to act only with Crown Authority for he took an oath as a Royal Marine. He stopped his association with ILETA this year and stated willing to give police evidence if he could be of any use. IE If there was an offence committed.

    He also wrote that at the time of the mission in 82 he believed Shortt to be in 21 SAS. Now we know (see MOD MInister reply I quoted on Shortt threads) that the mission had no Crown authority and so seems to have been in contravention of the Unlawful Drilling Act 1819. Which carried a seven year jail term for instructors of military skills if they had no Crown authority.

    It seems to me that Police should be dealing with Mr Shortt under the act subject of this thread. Just hope they don't lose count when they add up the offences also taken into account ?
     
  6. The important phrase in the above definition is "to do or not to do some act to his own or another's prejudice" If by walting about medals etc someone does something which they would not have done without the pretence and suffers some loss then the walt can be charges with an offence.

    Take the example of the old walt on another thread collecting for the RBL and stating he had a military cross from the Falklands. Now if someone could argue that they only gave money because they were influenced by him claiming to have a MC then he would have committed an offence. But in reality how many people only gave money because they thought he was a MC holder and in any event he was not wearing the medal so this act would not apply.
     
  7. I understand the sentiment here but surely the easiest way would be to copy the US system and by way of a statutory instrument under any Armed Forces enactment of parliament, create an arrestable offence of intentionally wearing unauthorised medals or passing oneself of with military service one is not entitled too. In simple terms if you are a walt then you are a cnut go to pokey.
     
  8. I think the offence is complete. Didn't persons, whilst deceived, do acts which they would not otherwise have done and which they now hold were acts to their own prejudice ? (Like the Royal Marines Falklands War veteran who went on the Belgian training mission and the police officers in uniform who went on the Belgian training mission). Would they have risked their liberty as instructors if they had known the training activity had no Crown Authority (the Unlawful Drilling Act 1819 offence). Would they have gone as instructors if they had known Shortt's martial arts qualies were questionable and his military experience some time in Army cadets as a lad ?
     
  9. Quite right. But the more serious offence would remain as the effect of stealing valour being to cause an act or ommission to be done to the prejudice of another.

    But your point that to legislate a lesser effect would nip things in the bud before the more serious offences of using a false intrument could manifest.

    Having said that a new law caannot address Shortty's history whereas an existing law can
     
  10. I particularly like the possible defence available to Mr Shortt

    That no one ever did an act or did not do an act because they were misled by my dressing up collection and documents.

    Judge "Are you saying that no one ever took you seriously Mr Shortt ?"

    Shortt "To summarize my defence yer honour it is that I was only ever a Walt"