Regina v Redford: CACD 1989

The court considered an allegation of cheating the public revenue.
Held: After citing Mavji: ‘Mr Ashe-Lincoln candidly conceded that if no distinction can be drawn in this context between an act and an omission, to use convenient shorthand, then this appeal fails. His submission was that this, as he would say, crucial, distinction did not fall to be considered in Hudson [1956] 40 Cr App R 55 or indeed in the case of Tonner[1985] 80 Cr.App.R.170 [1985] 1 W.L.R. 344 to which we were referred by counsel for the Crown. No doubt that is right except that in the opinion of this Court the distinction is not crucial and, where it exists, as in the instant case, does not justify a departure from the conclusions reached by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Hudson (supra). In coming to this decision we are influenced by the fact that in none of the cases or authorities such as Hawkins is the distinction between ‘deceit’ involving an act and ‘non-deceit’ involving no more than an omission canvassed or regarded as vital or indeed relevant. The distinction has always been and in our view remains between ‘frauds affecting the Crown and public at large,’ to repeat the words of Hawkins, and those which affect only individuals.’ (Lord Lane CJ)

Judges:

Lord Lane CJ

Citations:

[1989] 89 Cr App R 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ApprovedRegina v Mavji CACD 1987
The court considered the offence of cheating the public revenue.
Held: Cheating might include any form of fraudulent conduct which resulted in diverting money from the revenue and depriving the revenue of money to which it was entitled. . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Stannard CACD 1-Nov-2005
The defendant had been convicted of offences in which he had operated to purchase companies and use false debentures to evade corporation tax. Compensation had been sought under the 1988 Act. It was argued that the confiscation order should be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.234402