Divisional Court Cases
| Published date | 01 April 1944 |
| Date | 01 April 1944 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201834400800203 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Divisional Court Cases
CRIMINAL
LIABII,ITY
OF
A
CORPORATION:
MENS
REA
AND
RESPONSIBILITY
FOR
AGENTS
Director of Public Prosecutions u,
Kent
&Sussex
Contractors Ltd.
THE whole subject of
the
extent
to
which a company or
other
corporation
may
be made criminally liable was
reviewed
by
the
Divisional Court (Lord Caldecote, C.J.,
Macnaghten
and
Hallett
JJ.)
in this case (60
T.L.R.
175).
It
was an appeal
by
case
stated
from
the
decision of justices
for
the
county
of Glamorgan, sitting
at
Aberdare, dis-
missing two informations against
the
respondent company
for alleged offences
under
the
Defence (General) Regula-
tions, 1939.
If
any
person, for
the
purpose of obtaining
coupons
under
s. 12
(1)
of
the
Motor
Fuel
Rationing (No.3)
Order, 1941, provides,
with
intent
to
deceive, information
which is false in a material particular,
contrary
to
reg.
82
(1)
of
the
Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, or makes
any
statement
which he knows
to
be false,
contrary
to
reg. 82
(2)
of those regulations, he shall be guilty of
an
offence. Two informations were preferred against
the
respondent company charging
it
with these
two
offences.
It
was proved
at
the
hearing before
the
justices
that
the
ccmpany
sent
to
the
appropriate
authority
afort-
nightly vehicle record
purporting
to relate
to
the
journeys
made
by
aspecified vehicle during
the
preceding fortnight.
The
document was signed
by
the
transport
manager
of
the
company.
The
justices found
that
the
record was false
in material particulars in
that
it
mis-stated
the
journeys
and
mileage done
by
the
vehicle,
and
that
it
was known
by
the
servants
of
the
company
to
be false in
the
respects
alleged.
The
contention of
the
defence was
that
a
body
corpor-
ate
could not, in law, be guilty of
the
offences charged, as
an
act
of will or
state
of
mind
was implicit in
the
com-
108
To continue reading
Request your trial