Courts of Summary Jurisdiction
| Date | 01 January 1948 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201834801200101 |
| Published date | 01 January 1948 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The
Journal
of
Criminal
Law
VOl,.
XII.
No.].
JANUARy-MARCH,
1948.
Courts of Summary Jurisdiction
BRIBING
A
RAILWAY
SERVANT
ON20th November,
at
Clerkenwell Magistrates' Court,
Joachim Jacobus was summoned for corruptly offering
£1
to
James
Ellis, a servant of
the
L.M.S. Railway Co.,as an
inducement
to
do or as a reward for doing an
act
in relation
to
the
business of his employers,
the
said
act
being
the
placing of defendant's name above others in
the
waiting
list for sleeping berths on
the
9-25 p.m.
train
from
Euston
to Glasgow on 19th September, 1947.
After evidence
had
been called
to
outline
the
system
obtaining for
the
issue of sleeping
berths
on
the
L.M.S.
Railway,
the
principal witness for
the
prosecution,
James
Ellis, said
that
the
defendant called one
day
in September
to
reserve a
berth
on
the
9-25
train
for 19thSeptember,
and
when told
that
there was a long waiting list, said
to
him,
"Can
you do anything for me,
I'll
see you alright".
Calling
next
day, defendant asked for Ellis,
and
when
told he was still on
the
waiting list said
that
if there were
any
cancellations he was prepared to travel
under
an
assumed name. Ellis told him
that
under these circum-
stances he would issue a ticket,
the
price being 28/-. De-
fendant tendered three £1 notes
and
when given
the
change
handed
£1
to Ellis, saying
"That
isapresent for
you:'
Giving evidence himself defendant denied having said
"I'll
see you alright"
but
admitted
giving
the
£1
note which,
he said, was merely a
tip
in expression of thanks.
For
the
defence
it
was submitted
that
the
evidence of
Ellis was
that
of an accomplice,
and
that
while there was
1
2
THE
JOURNAL
OF
CRIMINAL LAW
corroboration of
the
passing of
the
note there was none of
the
words,
"I'll
see
you
alright"-which
were
vital
to
the
case for
the
prosecution.
It
was
further
maintained
that
there was nothing in
the
evidence
to
invalidate
the
de-
fendant's claim
that
the
£1 was a bona fide
tip
in
gratitude
for a service properly performed.
The
Magistrate, Mr. T. F. Davis, in convicting Jacobus,
held
that
Ellis was
not
in
any
sense
an
accomplice
at
the
time
that
the
disputed words were used, as no offence
had
then
been committed
and
none was in
the
act
of commission.
The
use of
the
phrase
''I'll
see
you
alright",
the
general
behaviour of
the
defendant, particularly his suggestion
that
he should use a false name,
and
the
size of
the
present made,
convinced
him
that
the
£1 was
not
a
tip
but
abribe.
Defendant was fined £10 with £10 lOs.
Od.
costs.
LARCENY-HUSBAND
AND
WIFE
On 19th November, 1947,
at
Clerkenwell Magistrates'
Court,
Wi11liam
Henry
Platt
and
his wife Gertrude Avis
Platt,
were charged with receiving a
quantity
of crockery
and
cutlery,
the
property
of
the
London Passenger Trans-
port
Board, well knowing
the
same
to
have been stolen.
Both
consented
to
summary
trial;
the
husband
pleaded
guilty,
but
the
wife pleaded
not
guilty,
and
the
Magistrate,
Mr.
Bertram
Reece, proceeded
to
hear
the
evidence in
her
case.
The
facts were
not
substantially in dispute
and
showed
that
Mrs.
Platt
kept
aboarding house
at
the
address of
herself
and
her
husband,
and
that
when these premises
were searched
by
a police officer a
quantity
of crockery
and
cutlery
stamped
"I~.P.T.B."
was found. Mr.
Platt,
who was on
the
canteen staff of
the
Board,
admitted
that
he
had
brought these articles
into
the
home
at
various
times.
When
questioned Mrs.
Platt
had
said
at
first
that
she
had
bought
the
articles during
the
blitz from an unknown
person,
but
subsequently she declined
further
information
and
repeatedly said, "See
my
husband
about
it".
When
confronted
with
her
husband
she broke down
and
told
him
that
she
had
"Said
nothing".
Giving evidence herself Mrs.
Platt
agreed
that
she knew
COURTS
OF
SUMMARY
JURISDICTION
3
the
articles came from
the
L.P.T.B.,
and
that
she
had
occasionally used
them
in
her
business,
but
said
that
all
her
conversation
with
the
officers
had
been aimed
at
shielding her husband.
It
was argued
by
her solicitor
that
she
had
acted
under
the
coercion of her
husband
and
was
thus
entitled to an
acquittal.
It
was submitted
that,
in
the
circumstances
confronting her
the
wife could do nothing if her husband
insisted on bringing
the
articles
into
the
house,
and
that
her
reluctance to speak
and
general demeanour indicated
that
she was in fear of
him;
if such was
the
case,
it
was
suggested,
the
provision of sect. 47, Criminal Justice Act,
1925, could be invoked in
the
defendant's favour.
This Section reads as follows:
-"Any
presumption of
law
that
an offence committed by a wife in
the
presence of
her
husband is committed under
the
coercion of
the
husband
is hereby abolished
but
in a charge against a wife for
any
offence other
than
treason or murder
it
shall be a good
defence
to
prove
that
the
offence was committed in
the
presence of,
and
under
the
coercion of
the
husband".
Giving his decision
the
Magistrate held
that
after
making every allowance for
the
special relationship between
husband
and
wife, there was nothing in
the
evidence to
reveal such a criminal influence as
to
amount
to coercion,
there being no suggestion
that
the
wife
had
acted against
her own judgment in deference
to
the
will of her husband.
He held further
that
as
the
wife
had
actually made use of
some of
the
goods in question there was no difference in
degree between
the
respective guilt of
the
defendants.
Each
was fined £5 with £3 3s.
Od.
costs.
THE
VIRTUE
OF
REMANDS
The main feature of
the
probation system as
it
is now
is said
to
be
the
fact
that
the
offender is released
without
punishment on his undertaking
to
be of good behaviour
and
to
be under supervision during a specified period.
In
practice, however,
many
offenders who are placed on
probation are in fact punished
by
being remanded in
custody after
the
case against
them
has been proved.
It
may
be objected
that
to
remand for enquiries is
not
to
punish,
and
of course as far as
the
law is concerned
it
clearly
is
not
punishment,
and
public opinion also recognises
the
To continue reading
Request your trial