Lord Goddard CJ considered the elements of the offence of obtaining property by fraud. In doing so he considered the position of a defendant who took a bribe but did not then carry out what he had ben paid to do and said: ‘It does not matter if he did not show favour. If the person did what is called ‘double-crossing,’ and did not do what he was bribed for, that is no reason why he should be acquitted of taking a bribe.’
Lord Goddard CJ
[1956] 40 Cr AR 188, [1956] 3 All ER 979, [1957] 1 WLR 165, [1956] 101 Sol Jo 112
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another CA 18-Jan-2001
The claimant had been awarded andpound;85,000 damages in defamation after the defendant had wrongly accused him of cheating at football. The newspaper sought to appeal saying that the verdict was perverse and the defence of qualified privilege . .
Mentioned – Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another HL 24-Oct-2002
The claimant appealed against a decision of the Court of Appeal quashing the judgement in his favour for damages for defamation.
Held: The Court of Appeal was not able to quash a jury verdict as perverse, and the appeal succeeded. An appellate . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 September 2021; Ref: scu.272788