ABSTRACT
Saville J: ... At the trial the case for the prosecution was that on 14 July 1984, the appellant had gone to a garage with a view to buying a Ford Escort van on hirepurchase. He was said to have told the salesman (a Mr Wilson) that he had looked at the Escort van for sale there, was happy with it and that it would all be subject to finance being arranged. Mr Wilson said that the appellant was satisfied that his own van would cover the initial deposit and that if the finance had been cleared by the finance company the vehicle would have been the appellant’s. Mr Wilson gave evidence that the appellant then completed a hire-purchase form putting the name Steven Pitman and an address, 15 Edinburgh Way, Thetford, as the name and address of the hirer. That address was in fact where a Mr Pitman lived next door to the appellant. Mr Wilson said that had he known that this name and address was not that of the appellant, he would not have taken the matter any further and would not have put it forward to the finance company as he did. He agreed that he did not intend that the form should constitute the actual hire-purchase deal, and said it was used so that enquiries could be made whether the person named as hirer was creditworthy. He further agreed that in fact a proposal form rather than a hire-purchase form should have been used for this purpose, but explained that the garage had run out of the latter forms at the time in question. It should also be
mentioned that the appellant had in fact signed the form at the end in his own name, something which Mr Wilson only discovered later, apparently from the finance company itself. According to evidence from the police, the appellant stated on being interviewed that he had put his own telephone number on the form and explained that he had put the name Steven Pitman on the form because he could not get credit if it was known who he really was. His explanation for signing the form in his own name was simply that he had not been thinking.
