Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Crime - From: 1900 To: 1929

This page lists 63 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.

 
Rex v Earl Russell [1901] AC 446; 17 TLR 685
1901
HL

Crime, Family
Earl Russell was charged with an offence under section 57, namely "Whosoever being married shall marry any other person during the life of the former husband or wife, whether the second marriage shall have taken place in England or Ireland or elsewhere, shall be guilty of felony." He was alleged to have married for a second time in Nevada in the United States of America, when his first wife was alive. It was argued on his behalf that s57 should be construed as if it prohibited only bigamous marriages occurring within the King's dominions, upon the footing that prima facie an English statute should not be taken to apply to acts committed beyond the King's dominions unless expressly saying so. Held: The defence failed. A marriage in Nevada may constitute statutory bigamy punishable in England. The jurisdiction of the Imperial Parliament in the eye of a British Court extends to all persons on British territory whether foreigners or not, and to all British subjects whoever they may be; and in a British Court the meaning of an Imperial Act will be understood accordingly.
That he honestly believed his divorce valid and that he was free to remarry, was not a defence and merely went in mitigation of punishment.
Offences Against the Person Act 1861 57
1 Citers


 
Wise v Dunning [1902] 1 KB 167
1902
KBD
Lord Alverstone CJ, Darling and Channell JJ
Crime
A protestant preacher in Liverpool was held to be liable to be bound over to keep the peace upon proof that he habitually accompanied his public speeches with behaviour calculated to insult Roman Catholics. His actions had caused, and were liable to cause, breaches of the peace by his opponents and supporters. The court rejected his argument that he could not be held responsible for any breaches of the peace that occurred since an unlawful act could not be regarded as the natural consequence of his insulting or abusive language or conduct.
Alverstone CJ: "there must be an act of the defendant, the natural consequence of which, if his act be not unlawful in itself, would be to produce an unlawful act by other persons."
1 Citers


 
Rex v Tibbits and Windust [1902] 1 KB 77
1902

Lord Alverstone CJ
Crime, Media
The editor published articles prepared by a reporter, affecting the conduct and character of some persons under trial. Both the editor and the reporter were charged with unlawfully attempting to pervert the course of justice. Held: Lord Alverstone CJ said: "We further think that, if the articles are in the opinion of the jury calculated to interfere with the course of justice or pervert the minds of the magistrate or of the jurors, the persons publishing are criminally responsible: See Reg v Grant. We are also of opinion that the fact that Allport and Chappell, the persons referred to, were subsequently convicted can have no weight in the decision of the question now before us. To give effect to such a consideration would involve the consequence that the fact of a conviction, though resulting, either wholly or in part, from the influence upon the minds of the jurors at the trial of such articles as these, justifies their publication. This is an argument which we need scarcely say reduces the position almost to an absurdity, and, indeed, its chief foundation would appear to be a confusion between the course of justice and the result arrived at."
1 Citers


 
Regina v Blight (1903) 22 NZLR 837
1903

Williams J
Commonwealth, Crime
(New Zealand) The Criminal Code in force at the time, reflecting the English, included an offence of sexual intercourse with a girl under 16, to which a one month time limit applied, and also an offence of indecent assault to which no time limit applied but to which, in the case of a young victim, consent was not a defence. After the time limit expired, the defendant was prosecuted for indecent assault, he having had sexual intercourse with a girl under 16. Held: (Majority) This was impermissible: "In the present case it is clear that everything done by the accused was an offence under section 196 [unlawful sexual intercourse] and nothing more. I think, therefore, the prosecution was instituted out of time. If the above construction be not adopted the result is that no effect could be given to section 196, and that section would be practically expunged from the Act, and the protection given by the time limit would be quite illusory."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Attorney-General for Ontario v Hamilton Street Ry Co [1903] AC 524
1903
PC

Crime, Commonwealth
The phrase 'Criminal law' means 'the criminal law in its widest sense'. The Judicial Committee refused to give its opinion on a number of questions relating to the operation of certain Canadian legislation which purported to prevent "the Profanation of the Lord's Day" by proscribing the doing of work on that day.
The Lord Chancellor said of a court being requested to answer an hypotheticala question: With regard to the remaining questions, which it has been suggested should be reserved for further argument, their Lordships are of opinion that it would be inexpedient and contrary to the established practice of this Board to attempt to give any judicial opinion upon those questions. They are questions proper to be considered in concrete cases only; and opinions expressed upon the operation of the sections referred to, and the extent to which they are applicable, would be worthless for many reasons. They would be worthless as being speculative opinions on hypothetical questions. It would be contrary to principle, inconvenient, and inexpedient that opinions should be given upon such questions at all. When they arise, they must arise in concrete cases, involving private rights; and it would be extremely unwise for any judicial tribunal to attempt beforehand to exhaust all possible cases and facts which might occur to qualify, cut down, and override the operation of particular words when the concrete case is not before it.
1 Citers


 
In re London and Globe Finance Corporation Ltd [1903] 1 Ch 728
1903
ChD
Buckley J
Insolvency, Crime, Company
A company which had gone from voluntary winding up, first to winding up under supervision and then to compulsory winding up, with the official receiver as liquidator. The company's former managing director was suspected of fraud, but the law officers declined to prosecute. Some of the shareholders wished to prosecute him, mainly at the expense of the company's assets (although they offered to pay into court at least £1,250 of their own money) while others opposed the prosecution as a waste of money. Held: The court authorised the liquidator, the official receiver, to do so at the expense of the company. Buckley J said: "the general scheme of the Acts with reference to the liquidation of a company no doubt is that the assets are to be realised to the best advantage for the benefit of those who are entitled to share in their distribution. But indications are not wanting that the assets may under the Acts be applied for some purposes other than these. Section 167 of the [1862 Act] is, having regard to the reasons which I have just given, one example of this, and in the [1890 Act] the same intent may be traced in sections 7 and 8 of that Act. These are sections which require the preparation of a statement of the company's affairs at the expense of the assets leading to a preliminary report, which is to show whether further inquiry is desirable as to matters relating to the promotion and the like, and, if necessary, to a public examination of parties incriminated, with the purpose, of course, of enforcing commercial morality. It is, therefore, in my judgement plain that the principle upon which I am to apply, or refuse to apply, section 167 is not measured or limited or even concerned with pecuniary benefit to be obtained for the shareholders or creditors."
and
' To deceive is, I apprehend, to induce a man to believe that a thing is true which is false, and which the person practising the deceit knows or believes to be false. To defraud is to deprive by deceit: it is by deceit to induce a man to act to his injury. More tersely it may be put, that to deceive is by falsehood to induce a state of mind ; to defraud is by deceit to induce a course of action."
Companies Act 1862 167
1 Citers


 
West Rand Central Gold Mining Company v Rex [1905] 2 KB 391
1905

Lord Alverstone CJ
Crime
The court considered whether international law could form part of the criminal law of England
Lord Alverstone CJ said: "The second proposition urged by Lord Robert Cecil, that international law forms part of the law of England, requires a word of explanation and comment. It is quite true that whatever has received the common consent of civilised nations must have received the assent of our country, and that to which we have assented along with other nations in general may properly be called international law, and as such will be acknowledged and applied by our municipal tribunals when legitimate occasion arises for those tribunals to try questions to which doctrines of international law may be relevant. But any doctrines there invoked must be ones really accepted as binding between nations, and the international law sought to be applied, must, like anything else, be proved by satisfactory evidence, which must show either that the particular proposition put forward has been recognised and acted upon by our own country, or that it is of such a nature and has been so widely and generally accepted, that it can hardly be supposed that any civilised state would repudiate it."
1 Citers


 
Bastable v Little [1907] 1 KB 59
1907

Lord Alverstone CJ
Crime, Road Traffic
The police had set up a series of speed traps in London Road, Croydon. Mr Little occupied himself giving warning signals to drivers approaching the traps, thus ensuring that they did not exceed the speed limit. There was no evidence that the drivers were exceeding the speed limit at the time when they received Mr Little's signals, although all slowed down. The defendant had been charged with obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty under section 2 of the 1885 Act. Held:
Lord Alverstone CJ said: 'Suppose a party of men are engaged in the offence of night poaching, and a person passing near warns them that the police are coming, I think it is clear that that could not be held to be an offence within this section. We must not allow ourselves to be warped by any prejudice against motor cars, and so to strain the law against them.'
Darling J made the point that there was no evidence from another driver, and added: 'In my opinion it is quite easy to distinguish the cases where a warning is given with the object of preventing the commission of a crime from the cases in which the crime is being committed and the warning is given in order that the commission of the crime should be suspended while there is danger of detection, with the intention that the commission of the crime should be re-commenced as soon as the danger of detection is past.'
Prevention of Crimes Amendment Act 1885 2
1 Citers


 
Antonelli v Barberi (1907) 70 JP 4
1907


Crime
The defendant was charged with encouraging persons unknown to murder a foreign soverign.
1 Citers



 
 Rex v Curley; CCA 1909 - (1909) 2 Cr App R 96
 
Rex v Stoddart (1909) 2 Cr App R 217
1909


Crime

1 Citers



 
 Rex v White; 1910 - [1910] 2 KB 124; (1910) 4 Cr App R 257
 
Hobbs v Winchester Corporation [1910] 2 KB 471; 26 TLR 557; 102 LT 841; 74 JP 413
1910
CA
Kennedy LJ
Consumer, Crime
Meat had been seized under section 116 of the 1875 Act as unfit for human consumption. Although the butcher was acquitted of any offence under section 117 of that Act, on the grounds that he was unaware that it was unfit for consumption, it was found that he was nonetheless "in default" for the purpose of section 308, so that his claim for compensation failed.
Kennedy LJ said that, "I think there is a clear balance of authority that in construing a modern statute this presumption as to mens rea does not exist".
Public Health Act 1875
1 Citers



 
 Betts v Stevens; 1910 - [1910] 1 KB 1; 26 TLR 5

 
 Rex v O'Brien; 1911 - (1911) 6 Cr App R 108

 
 Burden v Rigler; KBD 1911 - [1911] 1 KB 337; (1911) 80 LJKB 100; (1911) 103 LT 758; (1911) 75 JP 36; (1911) 27 TLR 140; (1911) 9 LGR 71
 
Moran v Jones (1911) 75 JP 411
1911
QBD

Crime
The court asked what was meant by 'found' in the 1824 Act, and whether it meant that, at the time of the arrest, the individual had to have the necessary unlawful purpose. The court decided that that was not necessary, though in many cases that might be the relevant moment because that would be when the individual was found. But "found" can include "seen" or "discovered". If an individual is seen in the relevant place with the necessary purpose, the fact that he is not arrested until later does not prevent the offence having been committed.
Vagrancy Act 1824
1 Citers



 
 In the Estate of Cunigunda Crippen deceased; 1911 - [1911] P 108
 
Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Sjoland and Metzler [1912] 3 KB 568
1912
CA

Crime
The defendant was found guilty of cheating when winning a three card trick by the use of 'sleight of hand'
1 Citers


 
Leach v Rex [1912] AC 305
1912
HL

Constitutional, Crime
Save insofar as they are clearly and unambiguously intended to do so, statutes should not be construed so as to make alterations in the common law.
1 Citers



 
 Rex v Davies; 1913 - (1913) 29 Times L R 350; (1913) 8 Cr App R 211

 
 Rex v Gross; 1913 - (1913) 77 JP 352; 23 Cox CC 455

 
 Rex v Hopwood; CCA 1913 - (1913) 8 Cr App R 143
 
Rex v Schama; Rex v Abramovitch (1914) 84 LJKB 396; (1914) 112 LT 480; (1914) 79 JP 184; (1914) 31 TLR 88; (1914) 59 Sol Jo 288
1914
CCA

Crime
Where the defendant was charged with receiving stolen goods well knowing them to be stolen, the onus of proof lies always on the prosecution. Once the prosection has established that the defendant was in possession of goods recently stolen, the jury might conclude his guilt. But if the defendant provides an explanation which the jury thought might reasonably be true, he was entitled to be acquitted even if the jury were not convinced of its truth. The prosecutor would have failed in his duty to cast doubt upon it satisfying the jury beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt.
1 Citers


 
Oakey v Jackson [1914] 1 KB 216
1914


Crime

1 Citers


 
Regina v Flood (1914) 10 Cr App R 227
1914
CCA

Crime

1 Citers


 
Rex v Moore [1914] 10 Cr App R 54
1914


Crime
The court considered the offence of cheating
1 Citers


 
Felstead v The King [1914] AC 534
1914


Crime

1 Citers


 
Rex v Threlfall [1914] 10 CAR 112
1914
CCA

Crime
The court considered an allegation of perjury under the 1911 Act, saying: "The section . . amounts to this, that there can be no conviction on the evidence of one witness alone; there must be one witness and something else in addition"
Perjury Act 1911 4
1 Citers



 
 In the Estate of Julian Bernard Hall deceased; In re RH; CA 1914 - [1914] P 1

 
 Rex v Lesbini; 1914 - (1914) 11 Cr App R 11; [1914] 3 KB 1116
 
Rex v Whittaker [1914] 3 KB 1283; 10 Cr App R 245
1914

Lawrence J
Crime
The Court was asked whether the defendant, a regimentary colonel accused of receiving bribes in connection with the construction of a canteen, was a "public officer" within the meaning of the relevant legislation. Held: Lawrence J said: "A public officer is an officer who discharges any duty in the discharge of which the public are interested, more clearly so if he is paid out of a fund provided by the public. If taxes go to supply his payment and the public have an interest in the duties he discharges, he is a public officer".
As to the offence: "When an officer has to discharge a public duty in which the public is interested, to bribe that officer to act contrary to his duty is a criminal act. To induce him to show favour or abstain from showing disfavour where an impartial discharge of his duty demands that he should show no favour . . is to induce him to act contrary to his duty; where this is done corruptly it is an indictable misdemeanour at common law."
1 Citers



 
 Re Hall; 1914 - [1914] P 1
 
Mather v HM Advocate [1914] ScotHC HCJ - 1
22 Jul 1914
HCJ

Crime

[ Bailii ]

 
 Rex v Smith; 1915 - (1915) 11 Cr App R 229
 
Rex v Aubrey (1915) 11 Cr. App. R. 182
1915


Crime

1 Citers



 
 Rex v Baskerville; 1916 - [1916-17] All ER Rep 38; [1917] 12 CAR 81
 
Rex v Grinberg (1917) 33 Times L R 428
1917


Crime

1 Citers


 
Bowman v Secular Society Limited [1917] AC 406; [1916-17] All ER 1
1917
HL
Lord Sumner, Lord Finlay LC, Lord Dunedin, Lord Parker of Waddington
Ecclesiastical, Crime, Company
The plantiff argued that the the objects of the Secular Society Ltd, which had been registered under the Companies Acts, were unlawful. Held: The House referred to "the last persons to go to the stake in this country pro salute animae" in 1612 or thereabouts.
A certificate of incorporation given by the Registrar in respect of any association should be conclusive evidence that all the requirements of the Act in respect of registration and of matters precedent and incidental thereto had been complied with, and that the association was a company authorised to be registered and duly registered under the Act.
Lord Finlay LC said that the certificate was conclusive as to the existence of the society as a duly incorporated company: "What the Legislature was dealing with was the validity of the incorporation and it is for the purpose of incorporation, and for this purpose only, that the certificate is made conclusive"
Lord Dunedin said: "The certificate of incorporation in terms of the section quoted of the Companies Act, 1900, prevents any one alleging that the company does not exist" "
Lord Parker of Waddington said: "The section does, however, preclude all His Majesty's lieges from going behind the certificate or from alleging that the society is not a corporate body with the status and capacity conferred by the Acts" . . And "[I]f the directors of the society applied its funds for an illegal object, they would be guilty of misfeasance and liable to replace the money, even if the object for which the money had been applied were expressly authorised by the memorandum."
Lord Sumner said of the offence of blasphemous libel: "Our courts of law, in the exercise of their own jurisdiction, do not and never did that I can find, punish irreligious words as offences against God. As to them they held that deorum injuriae dis curae. They dealt with such words for their manner, their violence or ribaldry or, more fully stated for their tendency to endanger the public peace then and there, to deprave public morality generally, to shake the fabric of society and to be a cause of civil strife. The words, as well as the acts, which tend to endanger society differ from time to time in proportion as society is stable or insecure in fact, or is believed by its reasonable members to be open to assault."
Lord Parker said: "In my opinion to constitute blasphemy at common law there must be such an element of vilification, ridicule, or irreverence as would be likely to exasperate the feelings of others and so lead to a breach of the peace"
Companies Act 1900 1
1 Citers



 
 Regina v Gorrie; 1918 - (1918) 83 JP 136
 
Rex -v Sanders (1919) 14 Cr App R 1
1919


Crime

1 Citers


 
Rex v Creamer [1919] 1 KB 564
1919
CCA

Crime
The prosecution had to prove in a receiving case that the husband and wife were not "living together". Held "A husband and wife are living together not only when they are residing together in the same house, but also when they are living in different places, even if they are separated by the high seas, provided the consortium has not been determined."
1 Citers


 
Rex v Shephard [1919] 2 KB 125
1919
CA

Crime
The term "person" where it appeared in s.4 of the 1861 Act was held to include an unborn child provided it was subsequently born alive. Soliciting a woman to kill her unborn child after it is born constitutes incitement.
Offences Against the Person Act 1861 4


 
 Director of Public Prosecutions v Beard; HL 1920 - [1920] AC 479
 
Rex v Beard [1920] UKHL 743
5 Mar 1920
HL
Lord Chancellor (Birkenhead), the Lord Chief Justice (Reading), Lords Haldane, Dunedin, Atkinson, Sumner, Buckmaster, and Phillimore
Crime
Homicide by an act of violence done in the course or in the furtherance of a felony involving violence is murder.
Insanity, whether produced by drunkenness or otherwise, is a defence to the crime charged.
Evidence of drunkenness which renders the accused incapable of forming the specific intent essential to constitute the crime should be taken into consideration with the other facts proved in order to determine whether or not he had this intent.
Evidence of drunkenness falling short of a proved incapacity in the accused to form the intent necessary to constitute the crime, and merely establishing that his mind was affected by drink so that he more readily gave way to some violent passion, does not rebut the presumption that a man intends the natural consequences of his acts.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Remmington v Larchin; CA 1921 - [1921] 3 KB 404
 
O'Brien v Strathern [1922] ScotHC HCJ - 1
29 May 1922
HCJ

Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Rex v Williams [1923] 1 KB 340
1923


Crime
The victim complained of rape, saying that she had agreed only to a physical manipulation by the defendant choir master which would provide her with extra air supply to improve her singing. Held: The appeal failed. The victim had not consented to sexual interourse.
1 Citers


 
Rex v Forde (1923) 17 Cr App R 99; [1923] 2 KB 400
1923
CCA
Avory J
Crime
A man, under the age of 23, had intercourse with a 15 year-old girl. He was charged with offences against section 5(1) of the 1885 Act and section 52 of the 1861 Act, relating to the same act of intercourse. He pleaded not guilty to the first (more serious) offence but guilty to the second and was bound over. It was found as a fact that he had had reasonable cause to believe that the girl was over 16 and the charge under section 5 was not proceeded with. Held: On appeal, it was argued that, to avoid absurdity, the statutory defence should be available in relation to the indecent assault charge as well as the carnal knowledge charge, where the indecent assault was the act of carnal knowledge. Counsel for the crown did not contend that the result of the statute was not absurd but said the law was clear. The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld the conviction. Avory J "The words of a statute cannot be construed, contrary to their meaning, as embracing cases merely because no good reason appears why those cases should be excluded. It is not the duty of the Court to make the law reasonable, but to expound it as it stands, according to the real sense of the words. Applying that principle, we can find no justification for reading the proviso to s.2 of the Act, which in terms is limited to charges of offences under that section, as applicable to a charge of indecent assault, which is separately dealt with in s.1. It is only by a benevolent construction that any effect can be given to this proviso, seeing that no offence is created by s.2, but if it be assumed to apply to charges under ss.5 or 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, which are referred to in the earlier part of the section, there is no canon of construction which would justify the Court in applying it to s.1, bearing in mind the various forms of indecent assault which do not amount to carnal knowledge." It was no defence on charges of sexual assault that the defendant believed the girl or boy to be under 16 and to be consenting.
1 Citers


 
HM Advocate v Savage [1923] ScotHC HCJ - 1; 1923 JC 49
21 May 1923
HCJ

Crime
The Court considered whether a borderline insanity was an impairment for the purposes of homicide.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Rex v Hussey (1924) 18 Cr App Rep 160
1924


Crime
An accused person who is defending his or her home need not retreat from a threat even if retreat is a reasonably available way to make effectual defence against a threatened assault.


 
 Rex v Bateman; CCA 1925 - (1925) 19 Cr App R 8

 
 Adcock (Edward) v Archibald; HCJ 12-Mar-1925 - [1925] ScotHC HCJ - 1; 1925 SLT 258; 1925 JC 58
 
Strathern v Padden (John) [1925] ScotHC HCJ - 3
5 Nov 1925
HCJ

Scotland, Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Hma v Ritchie [1925] ScotHC HCJ - 2
9 Dec 1925
HCJ

Scotland, Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Keating v Horwood [1926] All ER Rep 88
1926
QBD
Lord Hewart CJ, J Avory, Shearman J
Crime
A baker's van was doing its rounds, delivering bread which had already been ordered but the van also contained bread which could be bought as required. The bread was underweight The Order prohibited the offering or exposing for sale of food misdescribed. Held:
Lord Hewart CJ said: "The question is whether, on the facts, there were (i) an offering, and (ii) an exposure, for sale. In my opinion there were both."
Shearman J said: "I am of the same opinion. I am quite clear that this bread was exposed for sale, but have had some doubt whether it could be said to have been offered for sale until a particular loaf was tendered to a particular customer."
Sale of Food Order 1921
1 Citers


 
Strathern v Seaforth (Albert) [1926] ScotHC HCJ - 1
12 Mar 1926
HCJ

Scotland, Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Rex v Berg and others (1927) 20 Cr App R 38
1927
CCA

Crime, Criminal Evidence
The defendants were said to have conducted a disorderly house in providing exhibitions of a perverted nature. Held: The common law offence of keeping a disorderly house is committed when the house is so conducted as to violate law and good order. Letters found in such a house referring to unnatural practices may be put in evidence of such use.
1 Citers


 
Hogg v Macpherson [1927] ScotHC HCJ - 1
8 Nov 1927
HCJ

Scotland, Crime

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Hailwood; CCA 1928 - [1928] 2 KB 277

 
 Rex v Laws; CCA 1928 - (1928) 21 Cr App R 45

 
 Rex v Meyrick and Ribuffi; CCA 1929 - (1929) 21 Cr App R 94; (1929) 45 TLR 421
 
Rex v Keech (1929) 21 Cr App R 125
1929

Lord Hewart CJ
Crime
K was aged 21 when he had intercourse with a girl under the age of 16 and faced counts of unlawful carnal knowledge and indecent assault, the facts relied on in relation to both sets of counts being the same. The mother of the victim gave evidence that at the time of the relevant events the girl looked 18, and but for the recent increase in the minimum age of marriage the two would have been married. The defendant was acquitted on the carnal knowledge count, no doubt in reliance on the statutory defence, but was convicted on the indecent assault count. Held: The 1922 Act was described as "grotesque" and the legislation as "amazing". However the conviction was upheld and the sentence of one month's imprisonment reduced to one day, which permitted the immediate discharge of the defendant.
1 Citers


 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.