This Is Jersey

By BEN QUEREE

A 56-YEAR-OLD man defending himself against charges of forging £20 notes has been acquitted by the Royal Court.

Ian Stuart Channing, of Marina Avenue, has been found not guilty of forging notes, possessing forged notes and supplying them to another man.

He had consistently denied the charges which stemmed from a police search of his house on 8 October last year.

The Inferior Number of the Royal Court found him not guilty of the forgery charges, but guilty of falsifying an insurance disc, and wrongful use of an insurance disc.

He was fined £400 for those offences in the Royal Court yesterday.

On the first day of the trial, Channing - who had previously been advised by Magistrate Ian Le Marquand to retain a lawyer because of the seriousness of the charges against him - accused the arresting officer in his case of leaving statements out of his official police interview.

Although Channing signed the statement he made to police shortly after his arrest saying it was accurate, he cross-examined interviewing officer Pc Christopher Hopkins, saying that some parts of their conversation had been left out.

Pc Hopkins - who has been a police officer for 16 years - stuck to his story, and reminded the defendant that he had signed the statement.

Channing had admitted photocopying at least £160 worth of bank notes, and supplying them to a friend.

But he denied having any intention to defraud anyone with the notes.

Channing’s friend William Whiteman - a prosecution witness - had paid for goods with a fake note, after getting some photocopied bank notes from his friend.

Channing said he had told Mr Whiteman only to use the notes for jokes, and not to try to pass them off as legal tender.

The court heard that Whiteman successfully passed one of the notes, but had the other one refused and seized when he went back the following week.

That led the police to Whiteman, who in turn led them to Channing.

When Pc Hopkins recounted Channing’s arrest and the search of his home on 8 October, Channing alleged that some parts of the conversation had been left out.

The defendant claimed a conversation about the legality of photocopying money had not been written down, and another conversation about where one of his cars was parked had also been omitted.

Article posted on 31st July, 2004 - 12.00am