"Thousands of pounds" - actually not that many - "of fake £1 coins were uncovered at a counterfeiting factory during a raid on a farm in Kent", with "coin-making paraphernalia" being found hidden in a concealed room behind wooden panelling at Tonge Corner Farm, Tonge. The "concealed room" - one wonders whether concealment was more elaborate than a cupboard pushed in front of a door - is a nice change from the colour photocopier in the attic, coin press in the basement or stencil on the kitchen table.
Alleged coiners Michael Silk (70) and brother-in-law Paul Bart (65) are reported as denying production of "fake coins"; Silk's son Stephen (49) has pleaded guilty to the charge of counterfeiting and having counterfeiting materials. The elder Silk and Bart also deny having counterfeiting materials (including a hydraulic machine press) and possessing counterfeit coins with a view to distributing them as genuine.
Thinking about Australian and UK law regarding counterfeiting has taken me back to cases such as R v Kokkinos [1998] VSC 351; [1998] VICSC 131, R v Institoris [2002] NSWCCA 8, Williams v R (No 1) [1933] HCA 54; (1933) 50 CLR 536, the Crimes (Currency) Act 1981 (Cth) and the 1929 International Convention for the Suppression of Counterfeiting Currency.
The latter was signed for no less than -
His Majesty the King of Albania; the President of the German Reich; the President of the United States of America; the Federal President of the Austrian Republic; His Majesty the King of the Belgians; His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India; His Majesty the King of the Bulgarians; the President of the National Government of the Republic of China; the President of the Colombian Republic; the President of the Republic of Cuba; His Majesty the King of Denmark; the President of the Polish Republic, for the Free City of Danzig; His Majesty the King of Spain; the President of the French Republic; the President of the Hellenic Republic; His Serene Highness the Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary; His Majesty the King of Italy; His Majesty the Emperor of Japan; Her Royal Highness the Grand Duchess of Luxemburg; His Serene Highness the Prince of Monaco; His Majesty the King of Norway; the President of the Republic of Panama; Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands; the President of the Polish Republic; the President of the Portuguese Republic; His Majesty the King of Roumania; His Majesty the King of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes; the Central Executive Committee of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics; the Swiss Federal Council; the President of the Czechoslovak RepublicHis Serene Highness the Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary? The King of Albania? Thou thy worldly task hast done, Home art gone, and ta'en thy wages; Golden lads and girls all must, As chimney-sweepers, come to dust.
The Act, as one might expect after several centuries of state preoccupation, is polished and systematic. Section 6 provides that "A person shall not make, or begin to make, counterfeit money or a counterfeit prescribed security" (Penalty: imprisonment for 14 years). Knowingly uttering counterfeit money attracts a penalty of 12 years (s 7); possessing counterfeit money without a reasonable excuse attracts a penalty of 10 years (s 9).
Section 11 provides that a person shall not make or mend, or begin or prepare to make or mend; buy, sell, receive or dispose of, or offer to buy, sell, procure or dispose of; or have in his or her possession; a machine, engine, tool, plate, die or other instrument that, to his or her knowledge, has been used, has been adapted for use, or is intended for use, in, or in connection with, the making of counterfeit money.
R v Bradley [1935] HCA 72; (1935) 54 CLR 12 - also chimneysweep territory - notes that
Since the passing of 5 & 6 Vict. c. 38, which first excluded from the jurisdiction of Courts of Quarter Sessions offences against the Sovereign's title, prerogative, person or government, or against either House of Parliament, it appears to have been taken for granted that coinage offences were triable at Quarter Sessions, subject to any particular exclusion depending upon the nature of the penalty imposed. It may be conceded that the nature of the power to coin money, as well as the history of coinage offences, gives ground for the contention that they are all offences against the prerogative in this sense that, although offences provided by statute, the statutory provisions creating them are designed to protect the prerogative.Fortunately we've moved on from Edward Rex and don't chop off the hands of coiners or pour boiling lead down their throats.
To coin money and use it as currency was an exercise of the prerogative power of the Crown. From early times the making of counterfeit money was considered treason at common law. Such offences were regarded, "not as mere frauds fraught with grave harm to the community, but also and chiefly as the invasion of a specially royal right which our Kings had jealously guarded, and any tampering with the King's image and superscription on seal or coin was assimilated to an attack upon his person" (Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law (1895), vol. 2, p. 503). Counterfeiting the King's money was expressly included in the statute of Edward III., 25 Edw. III., stat. 5, c. 2.
