Recent Judicial Decisions
| Date | 01 January 1952 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X5202500103 |
| Published date | 01 January 1952 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
RECENT
JUDICIAL
DECISIONS
7
The
actual point decided in
Willcock
v.
Muckle
applies to many
matters, other than identity cards, which were dealt with by emergency
legislation passed between 1939and 1945.
The
appellant was convicted
by justices of failing to produce his national registration identity card
to the respondent, a police officer in uniform, when required to do so,
contrary to section 6 (4) of the National Registration Act, 1939, and was
discharged absolutely under the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, section 7
(1). On appeal he contended in vain that the Act of 1939 was no longer
in force because it was provided by section
12
(4) that it should continue
" until such date as His Majesty by Order in Council declare to be the
date on which the emergency that was the occasion of the passing of this
Act came to an
end"
and that several orders (which terminated other
Emergency Acts) contained declarations to that effect.
The
first of such
other orders was made as early as February 19, 1946.
The
view of the
Court was that on the true construction of section
12
(4) it was con-
templated that to bring any of the Emergency Acts to an end there must
be an Order in Council dealing with the particular Act and that as there
was no such order terminating the National Registration Act the Act
was still in force and the appellant was rightly convicted.
Recent Judicial Decisions
RECENT POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY AS EVIDENCE OF
HOUSEBREAKING
R. v. Loughlin
"IT
is too often the case, where a man is charged with house-
breaking and the evidence against him is that soon after the breaking
and entering he is in possession of the property, that the Court directs
the
jury
that there is no evidence that he broke and tells the jury to
concentrate on the receiving.
That
is not the law.
If
it is proved that
premises have been broken into, and that certain property has been
stolen from those premises, and that very shortly afterwards a man
is found in possession of that property, that is certainly evidence from
which the
jury
can infer that he is the housebreaker 'or shopbreaker
and, if he is,
it
is inconsistent to find him guilty of receiving, because a
man cannot receive from himself.
That
is what is so often done.
It
is perfectly good evidence of the prisoner being the housebreaker
that he is found in possession of property stolen from a house quite soon
after the breaking." This explanation of the law relating to circum-
stances which not infrequently arise in practice was given by the
Lord Chief Justice in R. v. Loughlin (35 Cr.
App.
R. 69).
A man was charged at quarter sessions on two counts, the first for
breaking and entering a golf club and stealing therein and the second
To continue reading
Request your trial