Colour copy of a UK Passport

[Nick Odell]

I think that the last time this was discussed on uk.legal.moderated
was about nine years ago and the situation, complicated by more recent
government requirements, seems just as unclear to me now as it did
then.

So... Googling 2017 results shows that there are still people saying
that you can't make colour photocopies of a passport and others - for
example, in the University of Liverpool's advice to its students -
which insist that only a colour photocopy will do.

I would like to make a photocopy of and laminate the personal
information page of my passport to use as informal identification when
out and about in places I wouldn't want to take my genuine passport.
Those places are not in Europe or that part of Europe currently known
as the UK. Is it legal for me to copy that page from my passport here
in the UK? Is it legal for a commercial company to do this for me in
the UK or will I just have to wait until I arrive in forn parts and
have them do it there?

Nick

[Yellow]

Post by Nick Odell
I think that the last time this was discussed on uk.legal.moderated
was about nine years ago and the situation, complicated by more recent
government requirements, seems just as unclear to me now as it did
then.
So... Googling 2017 results shows that there are still people saying
that you can't make colour photocopies of a passport and others - for
example, in the University of Liverpool's advice to its students -
which insist that only a colour photocopy will do.
I would like to make a photocopy of and laminate the personal
information page of my passport to use as informal identification when
out and about in places I wouldn't want to take my genuine passport.
Those places are not in Europe or that part of Europe currently known
as the UK. Is it legal for me to copy that page from my passport here
in the UK? Is it legal for a commercial company to do this for me in
the UK or will I just have to wait until I arrive in forn parts and
have them do it there?
Nick

As it would not occur to an average person that it is illegal to copy
their passport in colour it would surely be "out there" in big print if
doing so was indeed illegal.

I used a colour photo of my passport only the other day to open a bank
account and it did not cross my mind for a second.

[TTman]

Post by Yellow
I used a colour photo of my passport only the other day to open a bank
account and it did not cross my mind for a second.

I'm surprised that any bank would accept a photo copy of a passport as
proof if identity...... That migh/couldt leave the door wide open to
identity theft..

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Yellow]

Post by TTman

Post by Yellow
I used a colour photo of my passport only the other day to open a bank
account and it did not cross my mind for a second.

I'm surprised that any bank would accept a photo copy of a passport as
proof if identity...... That migh/couldt leave the door wide open to
identity theft..

You are making an assumption that there was not more to it. :-)

[Martin Brown]

Post by Yellow

Post by TTman

Post by Yellow
I used a colour photo of my passport only the other day to open a bank
account and it did not cross my mind for a second.

My solicitor provided me with certified colour photocopies of my own
passport for some proof of ID by mail. I very much doubt if they would
have done it in colour if it was against the law.

The passport page may include anti copy measures which will stop some
modern scanners and photocopiers in their tracks - like with bank notes.

Post by Yellow

Post by TTman
I'm surprised that any bank would accept a photo copy of a passport as
proof if identity...... That migh/couldt leave the door wide open to
identity theft..

You are making an assumption that there was not more to it. :-)

Nothing would surprise me where banks and proof of ID is concerned.

The ID proof from list A and list B is fragile at best.

[Tosspot]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[Robin]

Post by Nick Odell
I think that the last time this was discussed on uk.legal.moderated
was about nine years ago and the situation, complicated by more recent
government requirements, seems just as unclear to me now as it did
then.

Current FCO guidance[1]:

"make two photocopies of your passport – leave one with friends or
family and take the second with you, or store an electronic copy
securely; where permitted, use your photocopy as alternative ID, for
example when going out at night"

HMPO in 2014[2]:

"where copies of the bio-data, observations or visa pages are required,
copies may be taken in either black and white or colour, and may be held
electronically or in paper format. The person or organisation taking the
image must ensure that it complies with the Data Protection Act when
holding personal information"


[1]
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/be-passport-aware-and-avoid-being-hustled-on-holiday

[2]
https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/reproduction-british-passport.pdf

[Roland Perry]

Post by Nick Odell
I think that the last time this was discussed on uk.legal.moderated
was about nine years ago and the situation, complicated by more recent
government requirements, seems just as unclear to me now as it did
then.
So... Googling 2017 results shows that there are still people saying
that you can't make colour photocopies of a passport and others - for
example, in the University of Liverpool's advice to its students -
which insist that only a colour photocopy will do.
I would like to make a photocopy of and laminate the personal
information page of my passport to use as informal identification when
out and about in places I wouldn't want to take my genuine passport.
Those places are not in Europe or that part of Europe currently known
as the UK. Is it legal for me to copy that page from my passport here
in the UK? Is it legal for a commercial company to do this for me in
the UK or will I just have to wait until I arrive in forn parts and
have them do it there?

It used to be that the Passport Office claimed Crown Copyright on the
appearance of a passport, which was partly to prevent tourist-ware
pastiches (here colour would be a necessary component), but also
leveraged by others to dissuade data leakage.

The problem is that other bits of government positively encouraging
opportunities for data leakage by demanding that citizens hand over ever
more credentials to people they barely know (like estate agents when
renting a room). Also demanding 'proof' that certain organisations (eg
employers) have gone to the effort of inspecting the credentials.

Different organisations will require different degrees of scrutiny of
documents, for example requiring to see the original of a passport,
birth certificate, degree certificate, utility bill etc. Others will
*for their own internal purposes* variously be happy with photocopies or
scans[2], colour or black and white.

When they are required to certify to a third party that they've examined
the credentials then some kind of approved (by that third party)
accreditation of the examination will need to be in place. Which might
well include keeping a photocopy of the passport, the original of a copy
of the passport, a photocopy of the original[1] of a copy of the
passport (etc).

[1] Having sent that back to the applicant.

[2] In the past I've found some organisations (I think a recruitment
agency) were happy with a scan, overprinted with a dark watermark
giving the reference number applied for. That will head off a few of
the threats from leakage, and shouldn't make the rest of the scan
any less acceptable.

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Nick Odell
I think that the last time this was discussed on uk.legal.moderated
was about nine years ago and the situation, complicated by more recent
government requirements, seems just as unclear to me now as it did
then.

I think it is a technical issue in that passports and bank notes have little yellow / fluorescent dots that are recognised by colour copiers, which then refuse to copy them.

OTOH you can't make notarised copies of birth certificates etc., but have to apply for fresh official copies.

Post by Nick Odell
So... Googling 2017 results shows that there are still people saying
that you can't make colour photocopies of a passport and others - for
example, in the University of Liverpool's advice to its students -
which insist that only a colour photocopy will do.
I would like to make a photocopy of and laminate the personal
information page of my passport to use as informal identification when
out and about in places I wouldn't want to take my genuine passport.
Those places are not in Europe or that part of Europe currently known
as the UK. Is it legal for me to copy that page from my passport here
in the UK? Is it legal for a commercial company to do this for me in
the UK or will I just have to wait until I arrive in forn parts and
have them do it there?
Nick

[Jethro_uk]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

[quoted text muted]

I think it is a technical issue in that passports and bank notes have
little yellow / fluorescent dots that are recognised by colour copiers,
which then refuse to copy them.

Only the ones that are made to recognise them ...

[Roland Perry]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by R. Mark Clayton
I think it is a technical issue in that passports and bank notes have
little yellow / fluorescent dots that are recognised by colour copiers,
which then refuse to copy them.

Only the ones that are made to recognise them ...

Do passports even have them?

[Andy Burns]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by R. Mark Clayton
I think it is a technical issue in that passports and bank notes have
little yellow / fluorescent dots that are recognised by colour copiers,
which then refuse to copy them.

Can't see any 'eurion constellations' on my passport, clearly Euro
banknotes have them, would attempting to copy those be an offence in the UK?

In amongst the tiny security printing of my pink/green driving licence I
see a pattern of dots spelling "FAKE FAKE FAKE" so perhaps a photocopier
would accentuate the dots? Though I didn't notice my camera
accentuating them for the copies of licence/insurance/MOT that I carry
on my phone.

Post by Jethro_uk
Only the ones that are made to recognise them ...

Cameras don't seem to bother

[Roland Perry]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by R. Mark Clayton
I think it is a technical issue in that passports and bank notes have
little yellow / fluorescent dots that are recognised by colour copiers,
which then refuse to copy them.

Can't see any 'eurion constellations' on my passport,

It's highly unlikely they have any.

Post by Andy Burns
clearly Euro banknotes have them, would attempting to copy those be an
offence in the UK?

Not under the earlier cited law, perhaps.

Post by Andy Burns
In amongst the tiny security printing of my pink/green driving licence
I see a pattern of dots spelling "FAKE FAKE FAKE" so perhaps a
photocopier would accentuate the dots?

Or have a different wavelength sensitivity to the human eye so that they
weren't as easy to miss.

Post by Andy Burns
Though I didn't notice my camera accentuating them for the copies of
licence/insurance/MOT that I carry on my phone.

Different sensor, different wavelength sensitivity.

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Jethro_uk
Only the ones that are made to recognise them ...

Cameras don't seem to bother

Different sensor, different wavelength sensitivity.

[Sara Merriman]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Nick Odell
I think that the last time this was discussed on uk.legal.moderated
was about nine years ago and the situation, complicated by more recent
government requirements, seems just as unclear to me now as it did
then.

I think it is a technical issue in that passports and bank notes have little
yellow / fluorescent dots that are recognised by colour copiers, which then
refuse to copy them.

Bank notes, yes, passports no. I have a colour copier here and I've
just successfuly copied my passport and failed to copy a tenner.

[Robin]

On 15/09/2017 15:40, Sara Merriman wrote:
<snip>

Post by Sara Merriman
Bank notes, yes, passports no. I have a colour copier here and I've
just successfuly copied my passport and failed to copy a tenner.

Good job too given AFAIK s.18 Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 (The
offence of reproducing British currency notes) requires no "mens rea" :)

[Roland Perry]

Post by Robin

Post by Sara Merriman
Bank notes, yes, passports no. I have a colour copier here and I've
just successfuly copied my passport and failed to copy a tenner.

Good job too given AFAIK s.18 Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 (The
offence of reproducing British currency notes) requires no "mens rea" :)

But still guilty of "attempting x", which is an offence even if the
attempt at x fails, or was always bound to fail.

[Robin]

Post by Roland Perry

 Bank notes, yes, passports no. I have a colour copier here and I've
just successfuly copied my passport and failed to copy a tenner.

Good job too given  AFAIK s.18 Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981
(The offence of reproducing British currency notes) requires no "mens
rea" :)

But still guilty of "attempting x", which is an offence even if the
attempt at x fails, or was always bound to fail.

I do not see how you reach that conclusion as ISTM Sara can simply state
she was attempting to show that banknotes were protected from copying
(and did so). Absent "mens rea" I don't see how the CPS could think
they have any chance of conviction.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry

 Bank notes, yes, passports no. I have a colour copier here and I've
just successfuly copied my passport and failed to copy a tenner.

Good job too given  AFAIK s.18 Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981
(The offence of reproducing British currency notes) requires no "mens
rea" :)

But still guilty of "attempting x", which is an offence even if the
attempt at x fails, or was always bound to fail.

I do not see how you reach that conclusion as ISTM Sara can simply
state she was attempting to show that banknotes were protected from
copying (and did so).

That's the essence of my question. However, to show that requires
attempting to copy. And my understanding of the law about "attempts" is
that it doesn't matter if the attempt was bound to fail.

Post by Robin
Absent "mens rea" I don't see how the CPS could think they have any
chance of conviction.

She did intend to conduct the test. My question is - does the mens rea
test apply to attempts, as well as to 'successes'?

[Robin]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Robin

 Bank notes, yes, passports no. I have a colour copier here and I've
just successfuly copied my passport and failed to copy a tenner.

Good job too given  AFAIK s.18 Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981
(The offence of reproducing British currency notes) requires no
"mens rea" :)

 But still guilty of "attempting x", which is an offence even if the
attempt at x fails, or was always bound to fail.

I do not see how you reach that conclusion as ISTM Sara can simply
state she was attempting to show that banknotes were protected from
copying (and did so).

That's the essence of my question. However, to show that requires
attempting to copy. And my understanding of the law about "attempts" is
that it doesn't matter if the attempt was bound to fail.

I did not see any question in your post. It seemed to me a plain
statement of what you considered to be a fact.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Robin
Absent "mens rea" I don't see how the CPS could think they have any
chance of conviction.

She did intend to conduct the test. My question is - does the mens rea
test apply to attempts, as well as to 'successes'?

As I stated in my first post, there is no "mens rea" test for
"successes" in s.18.

There is a "mens rea" test for "attempting to commit an offence" (s.1(1)
CAA 1981).

[Roland Perry]

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Robin

 Bank notes, yes, passports no. I have a colour copier here and I've
just successfuly copied my passport and failed to copy a tenner.

Good job too given  AFAIK s.18 Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981
(The offence of reproducing British currency notes) requires no
"mens rea" :)

 But still guilty of "attempting x", which is an offence even if
the attempt at x fails, or was always bound to fail.

I do not see how you reach that conclusion as ISTM Sara can simply
state she was attempting to show that banknotes were protected from
copying (and did so).

That's the essence of my question. However, to show that requires
attempting to copy. And my understanding of the law about "attempts"
is that it doesn't matter if the attempt was bound to fail.

I did not see any question in your post. It seemed to me a plain
statement of what you considered to be a fact.

The question was:

"My question is - does the mens rea test apply to attempts, as
well as to 'successes'?"

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Robin
Absent "mens rea" I don't see how the CPS could think they have any
chance of conviction.

She did intend to conduct the test. My question is - does the mens
rea test apply to attempts, as well as to 'successes'?

As I stated in my first post, there is no "mens rea" test for
"successes" in s.18.

Agreed, the lack of success (being a non-defence) would only apply to
the attempt to copy.

Meanwhile, I see that the notes have to be ones which are "payable on
demand".

Is there a list somewhere of the ones which are no longer payable on
demand; surely some must be beyond payable by now?

It'd be a matter of concern for banknote collectors/sellers and their
catalogues.

Meanwhile, is permission easy to obtain? There's a rather large number
of news stories at the moment reproducing parts of the new £10 note;

<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/10-note-jane-austen-less-v
aluable-brexit-a7946456.html>

and Mark Carney appears to be aiding and abetting!!

Let alone places like this, where not all of them have "Specimen"
printed on them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banknotes_of_the_pound_sterling

Post by Robin
There is a "mens rea" test for "attempting to commit an offence"
(s.1(1) CAA 1981).

To avoid confusion, I'll quote the words:

"If, with intent to commit an offence to which this section
applies, a person does an act which is more than merely
preparatory to the commission of the offence, he is guilty of
attempting to commit the offence."

Which indeed says you do have to *intend* to attempt.

Now, the PP has admitted they did *intent to attempt*, even though that
attempt was unsuccessful.

[Robin]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Robin

 Bank notes, yes, passports no. I have a colour copier here and I've
just successfuly copied my passport and failed to copy a tenner.

Good job too given  AFAIK s.18 Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981
(The offence of reproducing British currency notes) requires no
"mens rea" :)

 But still guilty of "attempting x", which is an offence even if
the attempt at x fails, or was always bound to fail.

I do not see how you reach that conclusion as ISTM Sara can simply
state she was attempting to show that banknotes were protected from
copying (and did so).

That's the essence of my question. However, to show that requires
attempting to copy. And my understanding of the law about "attempts"
is that it doesn't matter if the attempt was bound to fail.

I did not see any question in your post. It seemed to me a plain
statement of what you considered to be a fact.

"My question is - does the mens rea test apply to attempts, as
well as to 'successes'?"

That question came *after* your statement

"But still guilty of "attempting x", which is an offence even if
the attempt at x fails, or was always bound to fail."

It was that statement to which I first replied. And which is why I
inserted my comment where I did.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Robin
Absent "mens rea" I don't see how the CPS could think they have any
chance of conviction.

She did intend to conduct the test. My question is - does the mens
rea test apply to attempts, as well as to 'successes'?

As I stated in my first post, there is no "mens rea" test for
"successes" in s.18.

See? I started to answer here the question you added after accusing
Sara of criminal.

Post by Roland Perry
Agreed, the lack of success (being a non-defence) would only apply to
the attempt to copy.
Meanwhile, I see that the notes have to be ones which are "payable on
demand".
Is there a list somewhere of the ones which are no longer payable on
demand; surely some must be beyond payable by now?
It'd be a matter of concern for banknote collectors/sellers and their
catalogues.
Meanwhile, is permission easy to obtain? There's a rather large number
of news stories at the moment reproducing parts of the new £10 note;
<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/10-note-jane-austen-less-v
aluable-brexit-a7946456.html>
and Mark Carney appears to be aiding and abetting!!
Let alone places like this, where not all of them have "Specimen"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banknotes_of_the_pound_sterling

Post by Robin
There is a "mens rea" test for "attempting to commit an offence"
(s.1(1) CAA 1981).

"If, with intent to commit an offence to which this section
applies, a person does an act which is more than merely
preparatory to the commission of the offence, he is guilty of
attempting to commit the offence."
Which indeed says you do have to *intend* to attempt.

As it patently requires "intent to commit" I don't see why you
paraphrase it as "intend to attempt"

Post by Roland Perry
Now, the PP has admitted they did *intent to attempt*, even though that
attempt was unsuccessful.

I have not seen Sara admit that. But I'll leave her to ignore your
comments, or not, as she thinks fit.

[Sara Merriman]

Post by Robin
I have not seen Sara admit that. But I'll leave her to ignore your
comments, or not, as she thinks fit.

I've been away for a few days and not reading news. I haven't seen
anything that's made me want to jump on my soapbox yet, just... Roland
being Roland :)

[Roland Perry]

In message <180920170832284452%***@blueyonder.co.uk>, at
08:32:28 on Mon, 18 Sep 2017, Sara Merriman

Post by Sara Merriman

Post by Robin
I have not seen Sara admit that. But I'll leave her to ignore your
comments, or not, as she thinks fit.

I've been away for a few days and not reading news. I haven't seen
anything that's made me want to jump on my soapbox yet, just... Roland
being Roland :)

I'll take that as an endorsement of the legal rigour, and politeness of
discourse, I'm attempting to bring to the thread. Onto a bit of a loser
with the latter :(

[Roland Perry]

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Robin
There is a "mens rea" test for "attempting to commit an offence"
(s.1(1) CAA 1981).

"If, with intent to commit an offence to which this section
applies, a person does an act which is more than merely
preparatory to the commission of the offence, he is guilty of
attempting to commit the offence."
Which indeed says you do have to *intend* to attempt.

As it patently requires "intent to commit" I don't see why you
paraphrase it as "intend to attempt"

Because while you don't *require* intent to be guilty of copying a
banknote, it's still possible to demonstrate intent by attempting to do
a non-accidental[1] copy.

And that latter action means you are guilty of the attempt, even if the
attempt is unsuccessful - which isn't restricted to the copier
recognising it as a banknote and going on strike, it could be a
non-sentient copier which has simply run out of ink.

[1] The issue of accidental copies was raised by Adam, shoving a pile of
receipts mixed with a banknote, into his copier; but I don't see a
defence for that in the Forgery Act. However if it failed to make
the copy I would expect the accidental nature to exclude the
possibility of a successful prosecution for an Attempt, because it
would lack Mens Rea for the attempt.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Roland Perry
Meanwhile, I see that the notes have to be ones which are "payable on
demand".
Is there a list somewhere of the ones which are no longer payable on
demand; surely some must be beyond payable by now?
It'd be a matter of concern for banknote collectors/sellers and their
catalogues.
Meanwhile, is permission easy to obtain? There's a rather large number
of news stories at the moment reproducing parts of the new £10 note;
<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/10-note-jane-austen-less-valuable-brexit-a7946456.html>
and Mark Carney appears to be aiding and abetting!!
Let alone places like this, where not all of them have "Specimen"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banknotes_of_the_pound_sterling

Any comments on this part, Robin?

I'll add that Facebook and eBay are full of people posting reproductions
of the new tenner, too. Can Facebook and eBay get umbrella permission
for all their subscribers, or does each subscriber have to apply
individually.

[Robin]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Roland Perry
Meanwhile, I see that the notes have to be ones which are "payable on
demand".
Is there a list somewhere of the ones which are no longer payable on
demand; surely some must be beyond payable by now?
It'd be a matter of concern for banknote collectors/sellers and their
catalogues.
Meanwhile, is permission easy to obtain? There's a rather large number
of news stories at the moment reproducing parts of the new £10 note;
<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/10-note-jane-austen-less-valuable-brexit-a7946456.html>
and Mark Carney appears to be aiding and abetting!!
Let alone places like this, where not all of them have "Specimen"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banknotes_of_the_pound_sterling

Any comments on this part, Robin?

No thanks.

[newshound]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Robin

 Bank notes, yes, passports no. I have a colour copier here and I've
just successfuly copied my passport and failed to copy a tenner.

Good job too given  AFAIK s.18 Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981
(The offence of reproducing British currency notes) requires no
"mens rea" :)

 But still guilty of "attempting x", which is an offence even if the
attempt at x fails, or was always bound to fail.

I do not see how you reach that conclusion as ISTM Sara can simply
state she was attempting to show that banknotes were protected from
copying (and did so).

That's the essence of my question. However, to show that requires
attempting to copy. And my understanding of the law about "attempts" is
that it doesn't matter if the attempt was bound to fail.

Post by Robin
Absent "mens rea" I don't see how the CPS could think they have any
chance of conviction.

She did intend to conduct the test. My question is - does the mens rea
test apply to attempts, as well as to 'successes'?

Suppose you attempt to copy (say) one third of a note by masking the
rest, as a way of investigating the copy protection? And repeating it
for other fractions? Common sense would suggest that true guilt comes
from assembling any successful copies. Or would mens rea apply to any
partial successes (or failures?).

[Roland Perry]

Post by newshound

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Robin

 Bank notes, yes, passports no. I have a colour copier here and I've
just successfuly copied my passport and failed to copy a tenner.

Good job too given  AFAIK s.18 Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981
(The offence of reproducing British currency notes) requires no
"mens rea" :)

 But still guilty of "attempting x", which is an offence even if
the attempt at x fails, or was always bound to fail.

I do not see how you reach that conclusion as ISTM Sara can simply
state she was attempting to show that banknotes were protected from
copying (and did so).

That's the essence of my question. However, to show that requires
attempting to copy. And my understanding of the law about "attempts"
is that it doesn't matter if the attempt was bound to fail.

Post by Robin
Absent "mens rea" I don't see how the CPS could think they have any
chance of conviction.

She did intend to conduct the test. My question is - does the mens
rea test apply to attempts, as well as to 'successes'?

Suppose you attempt to copy (say) one third of a note by masking the
rest, as a way of investigating the copy protection? And repeating it
for other fractions? Common sense would suggest that true guilt comes
from assembling any successful copies. Or would mens rea apply to any
partial successes (or failures?).

On one hand mens rea doesn't apply to the offence at all, and on the
other hand the offence is reproducing:

"any British currency note or any part of a British currency note."

[Jethro_uk]

Post by newshound

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Robin

 Bank notes, yes, passports no. I have a colour copier here and
 I've
just successfuly copied my passport and failed to copy a tenner.

Good job too given  AFAIK s.18 Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981
(The offence of reproducing British currency notes) requires no
"mens rea" :)

 But still guilty of "attempting x", which is an offence even if the
attempt at x fails, or was always bound to fail.

I do not see how you reach that conclusion as ISTM Sara can simply
state she was attempting to show that banknotes were protected from
copying (and did so).

That's the essence of my question. However, to show that requires
attempting to copy. And my understanding of the law about "attempts" is
that it doesn't matter if the attempt was bound to fail.

Post by Robin
Absent "mens rea" I don't see how the CPS could think they have any
chance of conviction.

She did intend to conduct the test. My question is - does the mens rea
test apply to attempts, as well as to 'successes'?

Suppose you attempt to copy (say) one third of a note by masking the
rest, as a way of investigating the copy protection? And repeating it
for other fractions? Common sense would suggest that true guilt comes
from assembling any successful copies. Or would mens rea apply to any
partial successes (or failures?).

Many years ago, I read a fascinating autobiography of one of the worlds
(certainly the US) most wanted forgers. (A Briton).

He broke a new antiforgery system for the US dollar which cost millions.

The system (somehow ???) made the surface of the dollar bill impossible
to photograph. If you focussed on one part, another would be out of focus
making it impossible to create a printing plate.

Not impossible. Just *very* difficult.

The aforementioned forger circumvented the mechanism by creating a
composite picture from 1mm squares - each individually focussed. Took
weeks, but worked.

The other new feature at the time was to impregnate the paper with
coloured plastic threads exactly 1mm long. US Treasury agents would
verify a notes authenticity by teasing a threadlet out with a high power
magnifier and small tweezers.


(I wish I could find a copy of the book. I read it late 80s early 90s
from a library).

[Adam Funk]

Post by Jethro_uk
Many years ago, I read a fascinating autobiography of one of the worlds
(certainly the US) most wanted forgers. (A Briton).
He broke a new antiforgery system for the US dollar which cost millions.
The system (somehow ???) made the surface of the dollar bill impossible
to photograph. If you focussed on one part, another would be out of focus
making it impossible to create a printing plate.
Not impossible. Just *very* difficult.
The aforementioned forger circumvented the mechanism by creating a
composite picture from 1mm squares - each individually focussed. Took
weeks, but worked.
The other new feature at the time was to impregnate the paper with
coloured plastic threads exactly 1mm long. US Treasury agents would
verify a notes authenticity by teasing a threadlet out with a high power
magnifier and small tweezers.
(I wish I could find a copy of the book. I read it late 80s early 90s
from a library).

If you remember the title, let me know; it sounds interesting. (I
shouldn't have to say this, but not as an inspiration.)

[Peter Parry]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Jethro_uk
Many years ago, I read a fascinating autobiography of one of the worlds
(certainly the US) most wanted forgers. (A Briton).
He broke a new antiforgery system for the US dollar which cost millions.
The system (somehow ???) made the surface of the dollar bill impossible
to photograph. If you focussed on one part, another would be out of focus
making it impossible to create a printing plate.
Not impossible. Just *very* difficult.
The aforementioned forger circumvented the mechanism by creating a
composite picture from 1mm squares - each individually focussed. Took
weeks, but worked.
The other new feature at the time was to impregnate the paper with
coloured plastic threads exactly 1mm long. US Treasury agents would
verify a notes authenticity by teasing a threadlet out with a high power
magnifier and small tweezers.
(I wish I could find a copy of the book. I read it late 80s early 90s
from a library).

If you remember the title, let me know; it sounds interesting. (I
shouldn't have to say this, but not as an inspiration.)

Possibly Stephen Jory

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Funny-Money-Stephen-Jory/dp/1903402573 also
sold under the title Loadsamoney. That does date from 2002 though.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Peter Parry

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Jethro_uk
Many years ago, I read a fascinating autobiography of one of the
worlds (certainly the US) most wanted forgers. (A Briton).
He broke a new antiforgery system for the US dollar which cost millions.
The system (somehow ???) made the surface of the dollar bill
impossible to photograph. If you focussed on one part, another would
be out of focus making it impossible to create a printing plate.
Not impossible. Just *very* difficult.
The aforementioned forger circumvented the mechanism by creating a
composite picture from 1mm squares - each individually focussed. Took
weeks, but worked.
The other new feature at the time was to impregnate the paper with
coloured plastic threads exactly 1mm long. US Treasury agents would
verify a notes authenticity by teasing a threadlet out with a high
power magnifier and small tweezers.
(I wish I could find a copy of the book. I read it late 80s early 90s
from a library).

If you remember the title, let me know; it sounds interesting. (I
shouldn't have to say this, but not as an inspiration.)

Possibly Stephen Jory
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Funny-Money-Stephen-Jory/dp/1903402573 also
sold under the title Loadsamoney. That does date from 2002 though.

I'm waiting for the Kindle version.

It *could* be an updated version. The copy I read would have been
1990-1994ish.

Not only was it a fascinating book, it was a very good disincentive to
get involved in forging. The author highlights that ultimately, no matter
how you try to muddy the waters, there will always be a trail leading
back to a *massive* printing press. Not the sort of thing you can hide in
a sock. Added to which the penalties - certainly for currency forging -
are *severe*.

To give an idea of dates, the authors career began forging travellers
cheques ....

[Sara Merriman]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry

 Bank notes, yes, passports no. I have a colour copier here and I've
just successfuly copied my passport and failed to copy a tenner.

Good job too given  AFAIK s.18 Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981
(The offence of reproducing British currency notes) requires no "mens
rea" :)

But still guilty of "attempting x", which is an offence even if the
attempt at x fails, or was always bound to fail.

I do not see how you reach that conclusion as ISTM Sara can simply
state she was attempting to show that banknotes were protected from
copying (and did so).

That's the essence of my question. However, to show that requires
attempting to copy. And my understanding of the law about "attempts" is
that it doesn't matter if the attempt was bound to fail.

Post by Robin
Absent "mens rea" I don't see how the CPS could think they have any
chance of conviction.

She did intend to conduct the test. My question is - does the mens rea
test apply to attempts, as well as to 'successes'?

It was only one side - that would never work as a forgery.

[Roland Perry]

In message <180920170754237095%***@blueyonder.co.uk>, at
07:54:23 on Mon, 18 Sep 2017, Sara Merriman

Post by Sara Merriman

Post by Roland Perry
She did intend to conduct the test. My question is - does the mens rea
test apply to attempts, as well as to 'successes'?

It was only one side - that would never work as a forgery.

I refer the hon lady to the answer I gave a few moments ago"

the offence is reproducing:

"any British currency note or any part of a British currency note."

To add some new content - it doesn't have to be life-size either.

[Martin Brown]

Post by Roland Perry
07:54:23 on Mon, 18 Sep 2017, Sara Merriman

Post by Sara Merriman

Post by Roland Perry
She did intend to conduct the test. My question is - does the mens rea
test apply to attempts, as well as to 'successes'?

It was only one side - that would never work as a forgery.

You can feed it through twice to do manual duplex.

Post by Roland Perry
I refer the hon lady to the answer I gave a few moments ago"
  "any British currency note or any part of a British currency note."
To add some new content - it doesn't have to be life-size either.

So what happens when coin dealers advertise notes on the web?
Surely stamping "specimen" across a part of it is sufficient to avoid
prosecution (that was customary in the past).

Scan resolution is normally well short of engraving detail on a banknote
(except on the top end flatbed scanners). Many sites have them eg:

http://www.worldnotes.co.uk/2Pages/List_g.html

Or as a concrete example of a fairly modern note and moderate detail:

Loading Image...

(though a rare one with a value to collectors far beyond its face value)

Otherwise its madness every blank piece of paper I possess replicates
exactly both of the blank short edge 4mm margins of a £20 note.

I hope that the offence is more precisely worded as copying the design
and/or anti-counterfeit measures on a banknote.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Martin Brown

Post by Roland Perry
I refer the hon lady to the answer I gave a few moments ago"
  "any British currency note or any part of a British currency note."
To add some new content - it doesn't have to be life-size either.

So what happens when coin dealers advertise notes on the web?
Surely stamping "specimen" across a part of it is sufficient to avoid
prosecution (that was customary in the past).

"Specimen" printed on it would presumably cause it to fail the "payable
on demand" test. But very few reproductions I've seen in the media
recently bothered with that particular detail.

Post by Martin Brown
Otherwise its madness every blank piece of paper I possess replicates
exactly both of the blank short edge 4mm margins of a £20 note.
I hope that the offence is more precisely worded as copying the design
and/or anti-counterfeit measures on a banknote.

I've quoted it earlier, and you didn't replicate anything to produce the
blank pages. However, copying the blank bit of a banknote would be an
offence.

Cont'd: law-is-an-ass.

[Adam Funk]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Robin

Post by Sara Merriman
Bank notes, yes, passports no. I have a colour copier here and I've
just successfuly copied my passport and failed to copy a tenner.

Good job too given AFAIK s.18 Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 (The
offence of reproducing British currency notes) requires no "mens rea" :)

But still guilty of "attempting x", which is an offence even if the
attempt at x fails, or was always bound to fail.

Can one be guilty of "attempting X" without mens rea for even the
attempt?

"I was just trying to photocopy my expense claim receipts, but after
the alarm sounded it turned out I'd accidentally put a banknote out of my
wallet in the copier with the receipts!"

(See also "That is your receipt for your husband and this is my
receipt for your receipt." ... "Mistakes? We don't make mistakes.")

[Roland Perry]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Robin

Post by Sara Merriman
Bank notes, yes, passports no. I have a colour copier here and I've
just successfuly copied my passport and failed to copy a tenner.

Good job too given AFAIK s.18 Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 (The
offence of reproducing British currency notes) requires no "mens rea" :)

But still guilty of "attempting x", which is an offence even if the
attempt at x fails, or was always bound to fail.

Can one be guilty of "attempting X" without mens rea for even the
attempt?

That's a slightly different question. But one worth an answer from an
authoritative source.

[Robin]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Roland Perry

 Bank notes, yes, passports no. I have a colour copier here and I've
just successfuly copied my passport and failed to copy a tenner.

Good job too given  AFAIK s.18 Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 (The
offence of reproducing British currency notes) requires no "mens rea" :)

But still guilty of "attempting x", which is an offence even if the
attempt at x fails, or was always bound to fail.

Can one be guilty of "attempting X" without mens rea for even the
attempt?

That's a slightly different question. But one worth an answer from an
authoritative source.

ISTM essentially the same question and one to which the answer is
clearly no. My post a couple of minutes ago cited the statute.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Roland Perry

 Bank notes, yes, passports no. I have a colour copier here and I've
just successfuly copied my passport and failed to copy a tenner.

Good job too given  AFAIK s.18 Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 (The
offence of reproducing British currency notes) requires no "mens rea" :)

But still guilty of "attempting x", which is an offence even if the
attempt at x fails, or was always bound to fail.

Can one be guilty of "attempting X" without mens rea for even the
attempt?

That's a slightly different question. But one worth an answer from
an authoritative source.

ISTM essentially the same question and one to which the answer is
clearly no. My post a couple of minutes ago cited the statute.

OK, so accidentally attempting to copy a banknote isn't an offence.
(Even if it's very much of a corner case).

[Robin]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Robin

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Roland Perry

 Bank notes, yes, passports no. I have a colour copier here and I've
just successfuly copied my passport and failed to copy a tenner.

Good job too given  AFAIK s.18 Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 (The
offence of reproducing British currency notes) requires no "mens rea" :)

But still guilty of "attempting x", which is an offence even if the
attempt at x fails, or was always bound to fail.

Can one be guilty of "attempting X" without mens rea for even the
attempt?

 That's a slightly different question. But one worth an answer from
an  authoritative source.

ISTM essentially the same question and one to which the answer is
clearly no. My post a couple of minutes ago cited the statute.

OK, so accidentally attempting to copy a banknote isn't an offence.
(Even if it's very much of a corner case).

I am not sure why you went to that corner of "accidentally". My point
was that ISTM there is also no offence if a person *deliberately* puts a
currency note into a copier and presses the "copy" button if no copy is
produced and that was what they intended. A person might well do so -
for example, in order to demonstrate (perhaps to someone of limited
ability to comprehend verbal evidence or accept others' statements) that
the copier detects and declines to make copies of such things.

And I think that exhausts my interest in explaining why Sara is IMHO
innocent of any offence (not that I ever doubted her ability to defend
herself against false accusations of criminal activity).

[Sara Merriman]

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Robin

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Roland Perry

 Bank notes, yes, passports no. I have a colour copier here and I've
just successfuly copied my passport and failed to copy a tenner.

Good job too given  AFAIK s.18 Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 (The
offence of reproducing British currency notes) requires no "mens rea" :)

But still guilty of "attempting x", which is an offence even if the
attempt at x fails, or was always bound to fail.

Can one be guilty of "attempting X" without mens rea for even the
attempt?

 That's a slightly different question. But one worth an answer from
an  authoritative source.

ISTM essentially the same question and one to which the answer is
clearly no. My post a couple of minutes ago cited the statute.

OK, so accidentally attempting to copy a banknote isn't an offence.
(Even if it's very much of a corner case).

I am not sure why you went to that corner of "accidentally". My point
was that ISTM there is also no offence if a person *deliberately* puts a
currency note into a copier and presses the "copy" button if no copy is
produced and that was what they intended. A person might well do so -
for example, in order to demonstrate (perhaps to someone of limited
ability to comprehend verbal evidence or accept others' statements) that
the copier detects and declines to make copies of such things.
And I think that exhausts my interest in explaining why Sara is IMHO
innocent of any offence (not that I ever doubted her ability to defend
herself against false accusations of criminal activity).

Thank you Robin, I have to say I have read this thread with interest
and amusement rather than fear and trepidation.

[Robin]

Post by Sara Merriman

Post by Robin
And I think that exhausts my interest in explaining why Sara is IMHO
innocent of any offence (not that I ever doubted her ability to defend
herself against false accusations of criminal activity).

Thank you Robin, I have to say I have read this thread with interest
and amusement rather than fear and trepidation.

I am grateful for that: achieving even such modest objectives is a good
excuse to open a bottle of Chateau Thames Embankment later in homage to
Horace :)

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Robin
<snip>

Post by Sara Merriman
Bank notes, yes, passports no. I have a colour copier here and I've
just successfuly copied my passport and failed to copy a tenner.

Good job too given AFAIK s.18 Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 (The
offence of reproducing British currency notes) requires no "mens rea" :)

That must surely be subject to a reasonable definition of "reproduce",
though. Otherwise bog-standard media photos including money, like this
one, would be an offence:

Loading Image...

Or even, more amusingly, the photos illustrating this report of a case
where the Bank of England quoted section 18 in order to instruct
someone to stop selling goods with currency designs on:

http://www.financial-news.co.uk/4159/2012/03/bank-of-england-order-sale-of-50-note-tissues-to-stop/

Mark

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Robin
<snip>

Post by Sara Merriman
Bank notes, yes, passports no. I have a colour copier here and I've
just successfuly copied my passport and failed to copy a tenner.

Good job too given AFAIK s.18 Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 (The
offence of reproducing British currency notes) requires no "mens rea" :)

Tell that to the Chinese ...

[Clive Page]

Post by Sara Merriman

Post by R. Mark Clayton
I think it is a technical issue in that passports and bank notes have little
yellow / fluorescent dots that are recognised by colour copiers, which then
refuse to copy them.

Bank notes, yes, passports no. I have a colour copier here and I've
just successfuly copied my passport and failed to copy a tenner.

A few years ago when I still had a pink-and-green paper UK driving licence (issued I think in the 1980s) I tried to take a colour copy of it, it copied but with the words VOID VOID superimposed. Could that have had invisible fluorescent dots on it, that far back?

[Roland Perry]

Post by Clive Page

Post by Sara Merriman

Post by R. Mark Clayton
I think it is a technical issue in that passports and bank notes have little
yellow / fluorescent dots that are recognised by colour copiers, which then
refuse to copy them.

Bank notes, yes, passports no. I have a colour copier here and I've
just successfuly copied my passport and failed to copy a tenner.

A few years ago when I still had a pink-and-green paper UK driving
licence (issued I think in the 1980s) I tried to take a colour copy of
it, it copied but with the words VOID VOID superimposed. Could that
have had invisible fluorescent dots on it, that far back?

It's possible they used an ink which was (only) visible to the scanner
used in photocopiers of the day.

The acid test would be: was it a digital or an analogue copier. Back
then many copiers were analogue with light-sensitive drums [aka
xerography], and they can't add stuff like that (nor perform pattern
recognition of dots).

[Ian Smith]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Nick Odell
I think that the last time this was discussed on uk.legal.moderated
was about nine years ago and the situation, complicated by more recent
government requirements, seems just as unclear to me now as it did
then.

I think it is a technical issue in that passports and bank notes
have little yellow / fluorescent dots that are recognised by colour
copiers, which then refuse to copy them.

I think they are rings, not dots.

The copier I have access to won't copy (or scan) banknotes for just
that reason, but it copies passports no problem. Also, I can see
teh constellation on banknotes, but not on any UK passports.

The fact that passports don't have the constellation suggests that
there's no intention to prevent copying them, since they'd be trivial
to incorporate.

regards, Ian SMith