R v Manners
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Diplock,Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone,Lord Simon of Glaisdale,Lord Kilbrandon,Lord Edmund-Davies |
| Judgment Date | 27 January 1977 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1977] UKHL J0127-3 |
| Date | 27 January 1977 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1977] UKHL J0127-3
House of Lords
Lord Diplock
Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone
Lord Simon of Glaisdale
Lord Kilbrandon
Lord Edmund-Davies
Upon Report from the Appellate Committee, to whom was referred the Cause Director of Public Prosecutions against Holly (on Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) and Director of Public Prosecutions against Manners (on Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) Consolidated Appeals], That the Committee had heard Counsel, as well on Monday the 6th, as on Tuesday the 7th, days of December last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Michael Francis Holly of 188 Chase Side, London, N.14, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) of the 24th of February 1976, so far as therein stated to be appealed against, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order, so far as aforesaid, might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioner might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the Petition and Appeal of Ernest Manners of 47 Riefield Road, Eltham, SE9 2QE, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) of the 24th of February 1976, so far as therein stated to be appealed against, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order, so far as aforesaid, might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioner might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet (which said Appeals were, by an Order of this House of the 20th day of June 1976, ordered to be consolidated); and Counsel having been heard on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Respondent to the said Appeals; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen assembled, That the said Orders of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), of the 24th day of February 1976 in part complained of in the said Appeals, be, and the same are hereby, Affirmed, and that the said Petitions and Appeals be, and the same are hereby, dismissed this House.
My Lords,
The appellants were convicted of offences against Section 1(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906: Holly of giving and Manners of accepting a gift or consideration as an inducement to show favour to a firm of contractors, J. Murphy & Sons Ltd., in relation to the business of the North Thames Gas Board by which Manners was employed. At their trial at the Central Criminal Court, Judge Rigg, following a ruling that he had given in an earlier case ( Reg. v. Joy & Emmony [1974] 60 Cr.App.R. 132), held that the Gas Board was a "public body" within the meaning of the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1889-1916. He accordingly directed the jury that the statutory presumption created by section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916 was applicable and that, if they were satisfied that the giving and acceptance of the gift or consideration had been proved the onus lay upon the accused to prove that it had not been given and received corruptly as an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Tey Tsun Hang v PP
-
R v Naci Vedat Natji
...Gas Act. 18 The Defendant appealed to the House of Lords which dismissed the appeal and wholly confirmed the Court of Appeal's judgment. [1977] 2WLR 178. 19 We were also referred to R v Barrett (George) [1976] 1WLR 946. The defendant was appointed an additional superintendent registrar of ......
- Western Australian Turf Club v Federal Commissioner of Taxation
-
Moonan v The Director of Public Prosecutions et Al
...on behalf of the public. If that is not a public authority, I do not know what is.” (Emphasis mine) 71 In D.P.P. v. Holly and D.P.P. v. Manners [1977] 1 All E.R. 316, (H.L.) the House considered the same question and Lord Diplock at p. 318 said: “The question as certified is in my opinion f......