Divisional Courts
| Date | 01 April 1973 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201837303700204 |
| Published date | 01 April 1973 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Divisional Courts
CALCULATED
TO
DECEIVE
Turner v. Shearer
IN the above case (1972 1W.L.R. 1386) the
High
Court
had
to consider whether the words "calculated to deceive"
bear
an
objective or a subjective meaning in s.52(2) of the Police Act 1964
by which it is an offence
if-
"any
person not being a constable wears
any
article of
police uniform in circumstances where it gives
him
an
appearance so nearly resembling
that
of a member of a
police force as to be calculated to deceive."
The
question arose
out
of a prosecution of the defendant,
Edward
Henry
Shearer before Southend-on-Sea magistrates.
The
facts,
which were not in dispute, were
that
the defendant,
an
employee
of Thames Security Service, was seen by the prosecutor, police
inspector Ronald Charles
Turner
in Southend
High
Street on
the
8
July
1971.
The
defendant was dressed in the following manner.
He was wearing ablack cloth cap, a blue shirt
and
black trousers,
all of which articles were ex-police uniform,
but
had
been perfectly
legitimately purchased.
The
sides of the
cap
had
been rolled down
so
that
the
cap
bore little resemblance to a regulation issue police
cap. A truncheon
strap
hung
down from the defendant's trousers.
He was waiting for a friend
and
had
an
appointment with a
potential customer for his firm. While the defendant was standing
waiting amember of the public asked
the
defendant
(whom
he
evidently mistook for a police officer) to have amotor
car
moved
which was blocking a
"run-in".
The
justices found
that
there was a likelihood of members of
the public being deceived into thinking
that
the defendant was a
police officer,
but
they also found
that
he did not intend to
pass
himself off as a police officer.
In
their view the words "calculated
to deceive" meant "intended to deceive".
The
justices accordingly
dismissed the information.
The
prosecutor appealed by case stated which came on the
9May 1972 before a Divisional
Court
consisting of Lord Widgery
C.j.,
Shaw
and
Wien
JJ.
The
appeal was allowed for reasons
given
by
Shaw
j.
After referring to the facts set
out
above, his
Lordship stated
that
the point in issue
turned
upon the correct
87
To continue reading
Request your trial