The defendant was charged with an offence under the 1889 Act. He had been alleged to have paid an immigration officer for the handing over of certain files which were then destroyed. At trial, the defendant argued that since the officer was an employee of the crown, and the Crown was not a public body within the definition in that Act, the acts did not fall within the 1889 Act, and that he should rather have been charged under the 1906 Act. The 1916 Act extended the definition.
Held: The 1916 definition included ‘public authorities of all descriptions’ The wording must be checked against the meaning intended at the time, and not by reference to later uses of similar phrases in other Acts. The same 1916 Act, in section 2, drew a clear distinction between the Crown and other public bodies. The Crown was not included in the definition even as amended. The conviction was in error.
Judges:
Lord Justice Mantell, Mr Justice Bennett, And, His Honour Judge Stephens Qc
Citations:
Times 12-Mar-2002, [2002] EWCA Crim 271, [2002] Crim LR 580, [2002] 1 WLR 2337, [2002] 2 Cr App R 20
Links:
Statutes:
Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 1(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1906, Prevention of Corruption Act 1916
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Crime
Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.167611
