Aiding and Abetting
| Date | 01 January 1940 |
| Published date | 01 January 1940 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201834000400112 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Aiding
and
Abetting
IN
several cases recently the
Ministry
of
Health
has prose-
cuted
certain persons for aiding
and
abetting
the offence
of failure to
stamp
Health Insurance cards.
The
peculiar
feature in a recent case was
the
fact
that
the
principal offender
was a company
and
that
the
company itself was not summoned.
The
offender,
the
abettor, was a director or servant of
the
company,
and
he alone was before
the
Court.
\Ve believe
that
convictions followed in all
cases-at
least in more than
one case
the
defendant
pleaded guilty.
From
the
point of
view of
the
Department
charged with
the
enforcement of
the
provisions
of
the
National
Insurance
Acts
the
utility of this
procedure is
obvious:
in these days of
innumerable"
straw"
companies possessing no resources
the
public interest can be
served in many directions should
the
procedure be legally
sound.
The
field of
argument
is wide, even
though
it be admitted
that
the
contention of
the
Ministry is valid.
Until
recent years
not
much
weight seems to have been given to
the
well-
known section 5 of
the
Summary
Jurisdiction Act, 1848,
defining
the
position of aiders
and
abettors;
but
decisions in
several cases have now
thrown
light
upon
the
position of
the
abettor,
both
at
Common
Law
and
in relation to statutory
Summary
Jurisdiction procedure.
First,
it should be noted
that
the
declaratory function of
section 5 is made clear.
It
is not asubstantive enactment,
but
a
statement
of
the
Common
Law
as applied to mis-
demeanours
dealt with bv
summarv
courts.
There
mav,
_.
-
indeed, be some feeling
that
the
intention in regard to section 5
was
that
it should only be invoked against the abettor where
there was no chance of bringing the actual principal before
the
Court-that,
if
the
principal be known, common sense
116
To continue reading
Request your trial