Case Summary

The appellant was convicted of five counts of possessing machines and materials adapted and intended to be used to commit forgery under s. 369(b) of the Criminal Code, relating to the manufacture of forged credit cards. On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury that 'adapted' meant 'suitable for' rather than 'altered so as to be suitable for'. The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the term 'adapted' in s. 369(b) is ambiguous and must be interpreted in favour of the accused to mean 'altered so as to be suitable for'. As there was no evidence that the materials in four of the counts were altered, acquittals were entered for those counts, and a new trial was ordered for the remaining count where some materials had been altered.