Mr Joshua Ackles Case Study Engaging in Online Poker Games Assignment

Mr Joshua Ackles, an accountant, had been engaging in online poker games for 6 months and found himself in significant debt. Unable to pay his mortgage, he approached Sidney Shackleton, a local businessman, whom he had been contracted by in the past and who was known to provide short term loans. Mr Ackles borrowed £20,000 from Mr Shackleton to cover his debts. In return, Mr Shackleton asked Mr Ackles to look at his company accounts and prepare the annual accounting reports, detailing the assets and liabilities of the company. As the company was performing poorly, Mr Shackleton directed Mr Ackles to inflate the value of the company assets. Mr Ackles refused. Mr Shackleton replied that if he did not do as he had been told his family would find out about his gambling and his legs would be broken. He was told that he must stay on the Shackleton estate to prepare the accounts as Mr Shackleton could not risk that he would go to the police. Mr Ackles called his family and told them that he had to travel to visit a client and would be away for a week. During that week he stayed at the Shackleton estate and prepared the annual accounts as directed, making the company look much more successful than it was. 

The fraud came to light and Mr Ackles was arrested and charged with an offence contrary to s.4 of the Fraud Act 2006. 

At trial, Mr Ackles stated that he did not appreciate that what he was doing was dishonest as he felt that he was acting to save his family from being shamed by his gambling. In this regard, he was not acting “dishonestly”. In addition, Mr Ackles claimed that he feared that he would suffer serious bodily harm if he did not comply with the demands of Mr Shackleton. In this regard, he pleaded the defence of duress. As to duress, the prosecution argued that Mr Ackles had associated with an individual engaged in criminal activity and, 

following R v Hasan [2005] 2 A.C. 467, the defence of duress must be withdrawn from the jury. The trial judge agreed, finding such an association existed, and withdrew the defence. 

The trial judge directed the jury on the s.4 offence telling them that “there is no doubt that Mr Ackles was in a position where he was expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person. The question for you is whether he acted dishonestly, and you must use the test for dishonesty set out in Ivey v Genting Casinos [2018] A.C. 391 and first ascertain (subjectively) the actual state of the defendant’s knowledge or belief as to the facts. Once that had been established, you must determine ‘whether his conduct was dishonest by applying the objective standards of ordinary decent people. It is not necessary for the defendant to appreciate that what he has done is, by those standards, dishonest.’ 

Mr Ackles was convicted by unanimous verdict of the jury for the offence contrary to s.4. 

Mr Ackles appeals to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that his conviction is unsafe. In particular, Mr Ackles submits: 

1. The trial judge had misdirected the jury on the dishonesty. The correct direction in a criminal case is that given by the Court of Appeal in R v Ghosh [1982] Q.B. 1053. 

2. The trial judge was wrong to withdraw the defence of duress from the jury. The defence should not be withdrawn when the alleged association was with someone who was not previously known to be criminal.