Regina v Brown (K): CACD 1984

Jury Directions: Common Element in Several Charges

The defendant was accused of fraudulently inducing the investment of money. inducing four people to acquire shares in a company by making misleading statements. The particulars given in the count identified five statements allegedly made by him in the knowledge that they were misleading, deceptive, or false. The means by which that investment was induced was an essential ingredient. A number of matters were specified in the charge as together constituting that ingredient.
The jury was correctly told that it was not necessary for all jurors to accept all five statements particularised in the count in order for a conviction; it was sufficient if each was satisfied in respect of one. But in the course of his summing-up and in answer to a question from the jury the trial Judge had said: ‘It does not matter that some of you are satisfied that one of the various statements is made out, and others of you are satisfied not about that statement being made out but that another is made out. It is sufficient if you are all agreed that there was a dishonest inducement. So if you find some of you are satisfied that representation A was made out, some of you are not satisfied about that but are satisfied that representation B was made out, then it does not matter, provided that you are all satisfied that there was the dishonest inducement made and that it operated upon the mind of the person to whom it was made and caused him to act in the way that he did.’
the direction that it was not necessary for the jury to be unanimous as to the relevant representation was wrong. The Court said:[14]
Counsel for the appellant was correct in his submission that it is a fundamental principle that in arriving at their verdict the jury must be agreed that every single ingredient necessary to constitute the offence has been established. The false statement is an essential ingredient . . In a case such as that with which we are now dealing, the following principles apply: 1. Each ingredient of the offence must be proved to the satisfaction of each and every member of the jury (subject to the majority direction).
2. However, where a number of matters are specified in the charge as together constituting one ingredient in the offence, and any one of them is capable of doing so, then it is enough to establish the ingredient that anyone of them is proved; but (because of the first principle above) any such matter must be proved to the satisfaction of the whole jury. The jury should be directed accordingly, and it should be made clear to them as well that they should all be satisfied that the statement upon which they are agreed was an inducement as alleged.

Eveleigh L
[1984] 79 Cr App R 115, [1984] Crim LR 167
Theft Act 1978 1(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedSofroniou v Regina CACD 18-Dec-2003
The defendant appealed conviction on charges of obtaining services by deception under the section. He had obtained a credit card dishonestly and operated bank accounts dishonestly over a period of time.
Held: His acts could constitute the . .
CitedChargot Limited (T/A Contract Services) and Others, Regina v HL 10-Dec-2008
The victim died on a farm when his dumper truck overturned burying him in its load.
Held: The prosecutor needed to establish a prima facie case that the results required by the Act had not been achieved. He need only establish that a risk of . .
CitedChilvers, Regina v CACD 27-Aug-2021
Brown directions Rarely Required
The defendant appealed saying that a Brown direction should have been given.
Held: Brown directions were required in fairly rare situations. When the individual particulars were not said to be coterminous with an essential element or . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Criminal Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.190219