R v Braithwaite ; R v Girdham
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 10 February 1983 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1983] EWCA Crim J0210-2 |
| Docket Number | No. 3103/B/82 and No. 5744/C/81 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 10 February 1983 |
[1983] EWCA Crim J0210-2
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Lane)
Mr. Justice Michael Davies
and
Mr. Justice French
No. 3103/B/82 and No. 5744/C/81
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. B. FARRER, Q.C. appeared on behalf of the Appellant Braithwaite.
MR. T. BARNES appeared on behalf of the Appellant Girdham.
MR. P. BAKER, Q.C. and MR. R. ASHTON appeared on behalf of the Crown.
These are two appeals which, as a matter of convenience, we have heard together with the consent of the parties, because they raise what is essentially the same point. The names of the appellants are, first of all Frank Wilson Braithwaite, and secondly, Ralph Girdham.
The appellant Braithwaite appeared at Lincoln Crown Court before His Honour Judge Hutchinson and a jury and after a trial, on 26th May 1982 was convicted of four counts of having corruptly received from a company called Doughty Webb & Co. Ltd., a gift or consideration, namely motor car tyres, as an inducement or reward for showing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour, contrary to section 1 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906. There were in fact some nine motor car tyres in all of a value of something over £100 – the precise amount does not matter. The allegation was that those offences had been committed between August 1973 and October 1975.
The facts which lay behind those allegations, in so far as they are material, were these. The appellant was employed by the British Steel Corporation. There was no dispute that that is a public body within the meaning of section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916. There is equally no doubt but that Doughty Webb & Co. Ltd. was a person holding a contract from the Steel Corporation within the meaning of that same subsection. It was admitted that the appellant had taken delivery of the tyres which I have mentioned from a firm of wholesalers and it was also admitted that Doughty Webb & Co. paid for those tyres through their own account with these motor accessory wholesalers. The appellant's contention was that he had paid one of the company directors, a man called Webb, for the tyres. The prosecution conceded that if the appellant had paid for those tyres that would be evidence, and indeed clear evidence, that they had not been received corruptly as an inducement or reward. On the other hand it is right to say that the prosecution expressly abandoned as any basis for their allegations that the admitted discounts on the tyres of between 5 and 10 per cent adversely affected the appellant in any way.
The only live issue in the case consequently was whether payment had or had not been made. If it was, he was not guilty; if not, he was guilty.
So far as the other appellant is concerned, he was convicted on 27th October 1981 in the Crown Court at Lincoln before Mr. Justice Forbes and a jury by a majority of eleven to one on four counts of corruption. Counts 1, 3 and 5 related to work alleged to have been done upon his own motor car, and count 9 related to work which, it was alleged, had been done upon the motor car of his wife. He was acquitted of two other counts. He was jointly tried with a number of other people, both human and companies.
He appeals, as does Mr. Braithwaite, upon a point of law which is of the same nature.
The facts which gave rise to these allegations were these. Between April 1975 and August 1976 this appellant was an engineer at one of the steel works belonging to British Steel Corporation. It was a senior post with a good deal of responsibility. There was a company called Leyden (Scunthorpe) Ltd., which was employed extensively on British Steel Corporation sites providing labour for construction work. The work done upon the motor vehicles owned by the appellant and his wife was authorised and paid for by Leydens at a total cost of some £443. Here again the appellant's defence was that he had made arrangements for the work to be done by Leydens purely as a matter of convenience, and that he had intended wholly to repay them. In the upshot he did produce an invoice, which contained no items upon it, for £890 and some pence from Leydens, which he claimed included the amount of £443 in respect of the repairs. He said that he paid that invoice in full. He denied that he was in a position to influence the allocation of contracts or providing any benefits for Leydens, but the prosecution disputed these contentions.
There is no need to go into the details of the defence, save to say that there were certain features about it which were extremely suspicious. The cheque by which he said he had paid this amount was dated 27th September 1977, which was just before a press release about police investigations into widespread alleged corruption at British Steel Corporation at Scunthorpe. The bank receipt stamp was dated 17th November 1977, and the evidence of the gentleman who received the cheque was that it had been received on 10th November, after the press release about the police activity. It is perhaps unnecessary to go into any great detail.
In each of these cases, Judge Hutchinson in the first, and Mr. Justice Forbes in the second, the learned Judge directed the jury that the burden of proof under section 2 of the 1916 Act moved to the defendant, and in each case the appellant submits that that direction was wrong. It is necessary therefore first of all to go to the Acts to see their wording.
Section 1 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 reads as follows:
"(1) If any agent corruptly accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gift or consideration as an inducement or reward for doing or forbearing to do, or for having after the passing of this Act done or forborne to do, any act in relation to his principal's affairs or business, or for showing or forbearing to show favour of disfavour to any person in relation to his principal's affairs or business; or if any person corruptly gives or agrees to give or offers any gift or consideration to any agent as an inducement or reward for doing or forbearing to do, or for having after the passing of this Act done or forborne to do, any act in relation to his principal's affairs or business, or for showing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to any person in relation to his principal's affairs or business; or if any person knowingly gives to any agent, or if any agent knowingly uses with intent to deceive his principal, any receipt, account, or other document in respect of which the principal is interested, and which contains any statement which is false or erroneous or defective in any material particular…..he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction …..
"(2) For the purposes of this Act the expression 'consideration' includes valuable consideration of any kind…..".
I then turn to section 2 of the 1916 Act, which deals with the presumption of corruption in certain cases. It reads as follows:
"Where in any proceedings against a person for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906" – which is this case – "or the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889, it is proved that any money, gift, or other consideration has been paid or given to or received by a person in the employment of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DPP v Forsey
...only the raising of a reasonable doubt, on the basis that this would give insufficient effect to the section. 20 In R v Braithwaite [1983] 1 WLR 385 the Court of Appeal confirmed the status of the presumption in English law as follows: 'The effect of that is that when the matters in that s......
-
DPP v Forsey
...law on the test ?until the contrary is proven?, namely, the line of authority in R. v. Carr Briant [1943] K.B. 607, R. v. Braithwaite [1983] 1 WLR 385 and Convening Authority v. Private William Doyle [1996] 2 ILRM 213, set out the appropriate law on provisions of the type at issue in thi......
-
R v Webster
...when received by the servant of a public body. The effect of section 2 has been so understood and applied for many years ( Braithwaite [1983] 1 WLR 385). Equally, reversal of the legal burden has the appearance of violating the terms of Article 6.2. Necessary, reasonable and proportionate 1......
-
Tey Tsun Hang v PP
...(refd) PP v Tan Sri Kasitah Gaddam [2009] 6 MLJ 494 (refd) PP v Victorine Noella Wijeysingha [2013] 2 SLR 1001 (refd) R v Braithwaite [1983] 1 WLR 385 (refd) R v Mills (1978) 68 Cr App R 154 (refd) R v Newbould [1962] 2 QB 102 (refd) R v Prager [1972] 1 WLR 260 (refd) R v Priestley (1966) 5......
-
Court of Appeal
...the servant of a public body. The courtobserved that the effect of s. 2 had been understood and applied formany years (R v Braithwaite [1983] 1 WLR 385) although, equally, itThe Journal of Criminal Law98 acknowledged that reversal of the legal burden has the appearance ofviolating the terms......