House of Lords
| Date | 01 January 1971 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201837103500105 |
| Published date | 01 January 1971 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
House
of
Lords
LAWFUL
EVASION
OF
EXAMINATION
ON
LANDING
D.P.P. v. Bhagwan
IT will be recalled
that
the respondent in D.P.P. v, Bhagwan
(1970,3
All
E.R.; 3W.L.R. 501) was a Commonwealth citizen to
whom
the provisions
of
the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962
applied.
He
landed
with
others
at
a
point
on the English coast
at
which there was no immigration officer, so
that
he was
not
examined
in accordance
with
the Act.
The
Court
of
Appeal held
that
the
charge against
him
(of conspiracy to evade the control of immigra-
tion so
that
he
might
enter the country without submitting himself
for examination) must fail, as the Act imposed no
duty
on such a
person to present himself for examination on arrival (1970, I
All
E.R. 1129).
This decision has now been upheld by the House of Lords.
The
charge laid against
him
was
that
of conspiracy to evade the control
on immigration imposed by the Act,
and
the particulars of offence
alleged
that
he
did
so to evade examination by
an
immigration
officer
and
medical inspector
and
without holding
an
employment
voucher.
The
result of his landing in this way was
that
he thereby
earned
the right to stay in the country.
It
is clear
that
his clandestine
landing
resulted from aconspiracy in
that
he must have agreed with
the master
of
the vessel, at least. But his acts involved no deception,
dishonesty or fraud,
and
the question was whether
in
these circum-
stances he was guilty of
any
offence known to law, since the
act
of
landing
without examination was
not
in itself prohibited either
at
common law or by the Act of 1962.
In
the result,
the
House held
that
an
agreement to commit such an act could
not
amount
to a con-
spiracy merely because the object which Parliament hoped to achieve
by passing the Act was thereby thwarted.
The
Crown claimed,
not
that
the Act expressly forbade the
landing,
but
that
the agreement was a conspiracy because (i)
the
necessary implicationfrom the Act was
that
the
immigrant
was
under
a
duty
to present himself for examination,
and
(ii) an agreement
for
the
purpose
of
enabling aperson to commit a
breach
of statutory
duty
is a criminal conspiracy
at
common law. But the House held
that
there was no implied
duty
to present oneself for examination,
To continue reading
Request your trial