Aiding And Abetting A Statutory Offence
| Date | 01 January 1959 |
| Published date | 01 January 1959 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1959.tb00522.x |
| Author | B. W. M. Downey |
JAN.
1959
NOTES
OF
CASES
91
facts as to the disposal of the money by the defendant do not
appear.
In
this connection,
it
will be remembered that
it
was
held by the Court of Appeal in
Re
Diplock
28
that
Clayton’s
case
29
applies where
an
innocent volunteer mixes trust moneys with his
own moneys, and also that the claim
in
rem
comes to an end
if
the money is not capable of being followed
or
if
the circum-
stances are such that the only remedy available in equity would
not produce an equitable result.
If,
as is to be hoped from a
legal point of view, this case goes to the Court of Appeal,
it
will
be interesting to see (if the point is there dealt with) whether,
once the plaintiff has traced his money into the defendant’s hands,
the onus is put upon the defendant to show that the right to follow
the money has come to an end.so Perhaps the matter may, after
all,
on
this point too, be decided
on
the pleadings for, as the
judge observed, the defence might be construed as an admission
that the defendant still retained the moneys.s1
P.
H.
PETTIT.
AIDING
AND
ABETTING
A
STATUTORY
OFFENCE
HAD
Slade
J.
been in a position to agree with the other members
of
the Divisional Court in
National Coal
Bmrd
v.
Gamble,’
the
case might have provided some important guidance
on
the question
of the criminal responsibility of corporations for the acts
of
their
servants
or
agents. As
it
was, the case turned upon the narrower
question of the intent necessary to constitute the offence of aiding
and abetting.
The facts of the case were that the Coal Board had an instal-
ment contract with the Central Electricity Authority for a supply
of coal to be delivered at the colliery into lorries sent by a carrier
on
behalf of the authority. Loading was done through a hopper
operated by the Board’s servants until the lorry driver, one
Mallender, told them to stop. The driver then took the lorry to
the weighbridge, where
it
was weighed by one Haslam, an employee
of the Board, and was found to be loaded above the maximum
permitted weight for the lorry. Haslam informed the driver
of
the
excess weight and asked him whether he intended
to
take the full
load away, there being facilities for off-loading at the colliery.
Mallender said that he would risk
it,
whereupon Haslam made
out the weight ticket and handed
it
to Mallender, who drove the
lorry away. Mallender’s employers were subsequently convicted,
28
Supra.
29
(1816)
1
Mer.
529, 572.
30
Probably it
is.
The facts are within the defendant’s knowledge but almost
inevitably outside the plaintiffs.
31
[1958] 2
All E.R. at p.
534.
But Jenkins L.J., in the Court of Appeal, thought
it would be unreasonable to treat the relevant paragraph of the defence as such
an admission
([1958]
1
W.L.R. at p.
1228; [1958] 3
All
E.R. at
p.
543).
1
[1958]
3
W.L.R.
434;
also
reported
[1958]
3
All
E.R.
203.
To continue reading
Request your trial