IPE Marble Arch Limited vs Anthony Moran

This case involved IPE Marble Arch Limited seeking leave to prefer a voluntary bill of indictment against Anthony Moran, following the dismissal of charges related to forgery and fraud by the Crown Court at Southwark.

TLDR:

• IPE Marble Arch Limited sought to overturn the dismissal of forgery and fraud charges against Anthony Moran.
• The charges were initially dismissed by HHJ Tomlinson in the Crown Court at Southwark.
• The High Court reviewed whether the dismissal was based on a substantive error of law.
• The High Court upheld the dismissal, finding no sufficient evidence to support the charges.

The applicant, IPE Marble Arch Limited, part of a property development group, sought to develop a residential property known as Marble Arch Apartments. Anthony Moran, a long leaseholder and civil engineer, opposed the development. He allegedly used false identities in communications to disrupt the project.

On 12 October 2023, HHJ Tomlinson dismissed all charges against Moran in the Crown Court at Southwark, quashing the indictment. IPE Marble Arch Limited then sought to invoke the High Court's exceptional jurisdiction, arguing that the judge made a basic and substantive error of law in dismissing the charges.

The High Court, presided over by Mrs Justice Yip, reviewed the statutory provisions and the evidence presented. The prosecution argued that the false identities used by Moran in emails constituted forgery and fraud. However, the defense contended that the emails did not meet the statutory definitions of false instruments or fraudulent representations.

The High Court found that the prosecution had not sufficiently particularized the charges, failing to specify the acts or omissions induced by the false identities. The court emphasized that the statutory intention must be linked to the use of a false identity in sending the emails.

Mrs Justice Yip concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish the necessary intent for forgery and fraud. The prosecution's reliance on an overarching intention to stop the development was deemed inadequate to support proper convictions.

Consequently, the High Court upheld the dismissal of the charges, agreeing with HHJ Tomlinson's decision. The application for leave to prefer a voluntary bill of indictment was refused.

Legal representatives: Donal Lawler (instructed by Edmonds Marshall Mcmahon) for the Applicant/Prosecution, Ivan Krolick (instructed by Bishop and Light Solicitors) for the Respondent/Defendant.

Judicial Panel: Mrs Justice Yip

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 1375 (KB)