Effecting a Public Mischief
| Author | J. A. Coutts |
| Date | 01 January 1957 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201835702100109 |
| Published date | 01 January 1957 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Effecting a
Public
Mischief
By PROFESSOR J. A. COUTTS
Faculty
of
Law, University
of
Bristol
WHE N in 1932, Elizabeth Manley falsely informed
the
Croydon police
that
she had been
the
victim of a robbery,
she realised, no doubt,
that
she would thereby waste their
time in unnecessary investigations (as indeed she did). She
could hardly have foreseen
her
conviction at
the
Central
Criminal
Court
of unlawfully effecting a public mischief, or
the
affirmation of
that
conviction in
the
Court of Criminal
Appeal (R. v. Manley (1933, 1
K.B.
529», for counsel for
the
Crown
(Mr.
L. A. Byrne) had there to admit
that
"it
is
true
that
suchfacts have
not
hitherto been
put
forward as amounting
to public mischief".
The
novelty of
the
situation caused this
decision to be widely and trenchantly attacked1and more
recently, in R. v. Newland (1953, 2
All
E.R. 1067), the
Court
of Criminal Appeal, though recognising
that
R. v. Manley
was
"a
case binding on this court", concluded
that
"it
may
be
that
Manley's case will some day be considered by
the
House of Lords",
and
that meanwhile
"in
our
considered
opinion, the safe course is no longer to follow
it".
This-
to say
the
least-left
the
legal position somewhat uncertain.
Nor
did Joshua v. Reg. (1955,1
All
E.R. 22) help. There,
the
Judicial Committee though adverting to the fact
that
the
question whether, apart from cases of conspiracy, there is any
common law offence of effecting a public mischief
"is
one of
general importance on which there are conflicting views by
judges of great eminence",» decided (very properly)
that
"as
it
is
not
necessary to the decision in
the
present appeal, their
Lordships do not propose to deal with
it".
In
deference to the
1
See,
e.g. 49
L.Q.R.
153,
183,483.
2
They
cited
R. v. Daniell (6 Mod. Rep., at p.
100)
per
Holt
C.J.;
R. v. Wheatley
(z Burr., at
pp.
IIZ7,
IIz8)
per
Lord
Mansfield;
R. v. Newland (supra) per
Lord
God-
dard;
and
Kerr v. Hill (1936,
S.C.
(J.)
at p. 75) per
the
Lord
Justice-General,
Lord
Normand,
60
To continue reading
Request your trial