Do you have an honest claim of right – what does this mean? Illustration by Mubin Ul Haider

Do you have an honest claim of right – what does this mean? Illustration by Mubin Ul Haider

The following hypothetical analysis by Mubin Ul Haider is based on the Reg v Pollard (1962) QWN 13 case, and it was completed for the purpose of a university assignment to assist in legal interpretation and analysis. The following assessment does aim to do this by the use of a similar case from a real event, this being the Reg v Pollard case.

In the case Reg v Pollard (1962) QWN 13 , Mr Douglas Pollard (herein the accused person “Pollard”) being accused and charged of unlawfully using a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner of the motor vehicle which is, Brit Reg (herein known as “Reg”). What led to this act was that Pollard was under the belief that Reg would not have any objection from him using the motor vehicle. Further to this he was also of the belief that Reg would have not bothered and if he was to ask, Pollard would have agreed for him use his motor vehicle. Therefore, Pollard was regarded as acting in honest belief that he had the honest claim of right to drive the vehicle owned by Reg. In the Court of criminal appeal Justice Gibbs, raised the issue that jury should have considered the following questions in relation to claim of right under s22 and 408A of the Criminal Code prior to giving Pollard a guilty verdict:

• The question is not about the fact that Pollard had any right to take the motor vehicle and doing so is in the exercise of an honest claim of right without intension to defraud. However, Pollard honestly believed that he is entitled to take the vehicle and had the belief that Reg would have no objection or care that he was taking his vehicle. Therefore, this was a situation of an honest claim of right whereby he strongly believed Reg would have agreed either way for him to take the car.

• If Pollard honestly believes himself to be entitled to drive the motor vehicle, the honest claim of right may stem from a belief. For the excuse of honest claim of right to apply, Pollard must believe that he has a legal entitlement of the motor vehicle to drive. For the excuse to apply, Pollard must act without an intention to defraud.

• Under the Criminal Code s 624 the Juries were not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Pollard did not honestly believe that Reg would have given permission for Pollard to use his vehicle. This would have been regardless of whether Reg had known of Pollards current circumstances which led to him taking the car. The Juries also were not satisfied that Pollard had any intention to Defraud while using Reg’s Motor vehicle.

In applying the above case, to the hypothetical provided, the law on the honest claim of right to a certain property must be proven on the basis that someone had a legal entitlement to that property. In the hypothetical of Roger v Casey, it can be established on using the principles of Reg v Pollard, that Casey did have a right of claim to the property. This is because the following submissions can be made.

• Casey was under the honest belief that she could us the Rogers laptop to assist with their group assignment – also considering that Roger’s laptop was the only one that had the required software to complete the assignment. Therefore, it can also be argued that there was no intention there to defraud because she was intentionally using the laptop for the purpose of completing an assignment.

• Although there is no legal entitlement to the laptop, it was not taken intentionally for the benefit of her own personal use or gain. In other words, Casey did not take the laptop to keep but to complete a group assignment on a laptop where the required software was only viable on.

Therefore, it can be argued that Casey did have honest claim of right to the laptop to help serve for the benefit of not only herself but the group. This is to ensure they achieve the grades they deserve to graduate from school.

Overall, the case of Reg v Pollard and the above hypothetical has helped analyse and interpret the meaning behind the legislation under the Criminal Code of Queensland in the specific sections of 22, 408A and 624. It has also allowed us to explore how the law in Queensland is based on common law precedents in assisting with the interpretation of the law which can sometimes always be unclear or not clearly understood. The teachings of this assessment have helped in building those skills of being able to communicate in writing, analyse, research and interpret the law in a way that can be translated in plain English to someone who does not specialise in law. Although, the above is based on a real case and the application of the law to a hypothetical, this should be taken as legal advice but general information provided by a university student in their tasked assessment.

DISCLAIMER: HSC Legal provides hypothetical assessments, articles and newsletters on its website for general and informative purposes only. This hypothetical is based on a previous assessment task which was written by a student for university purposes and was happy to share their analysis of the Reg v Pollard (1962) QWN 13 case. Please note, any information from these assessments, articles and newsletters should not be taken as constituting to professional legal advice. If you do require legal advice, we recommend that you seek assistance from our legal professions.