Recent Judicial Decisions
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X5402700203 |
| Published date | 01 April 1954 |
| Date | 01 April 1954 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
91
THE
POLlCE
JOURNAL
took
anarrower
ground
in agreeing with the actual decision to alIow
the prosecutor's appeal. He said
that
the decision was dependent on
the finding
of
fact by the recorder
that
the defendant
not
only knew
that
the women were prostitutes but
that
he habitualIy exercised
direction
and
influence over their movements. In view
of
that
finding,
subsection (3)
of
section I
of
the Act came into play to establish a
presumption
that
the defendant was knowingly living on the
earning,
of
prostitution.
It
would have been open to him as a
matter
of
law
to rebut
that
presumption
but
clearly on the facts he could
not
do so.
Mr. Justice SelIers also
thought
that
this
narrower
ground
was
sufficient to sustain aconviction on the facts
of
the case but, as been
said above, he also agreed with the wider reasoning
of
the Lord
Chief
Justice.
Recent
Judicial
Decisions
FALSlFICATIO/\
OF
Accouxrs:
THE
NECESSARY
I/\TENT
R. v. Wines
When
the
departmental
manager
of
astore was tried for the offence
of
falsification
of
accounts he admitted
that
he had falsified the
accounts
but
said
that
his reason for doing so was to
make
it
appear
that
the gross profit
of
his
department-in
fact 16
per
cent.-was
24 per cent., because he was afraid
that
if he only showed 16 per
cent. he would be dismissed
and
Jose his employment
and
his wages.
The case for the prosecution was
that
he had falsified the accounts
in
order
to cover up the thefts. In his direction to
the
jury
the recorder
said
that
whichever version was taken, it
amounted
to an intent to
defraud.
The
Court
of
Criminal Appeal held
that
this was a correct
statement
of
the
law as to the intent which is necessary to establish
this offence (1954, I W.L.R. 65).
Under
section I
of
the Falsification
of
Accounts Act 1875 an
"intent
to
defraud"
must
be proved. It is
not
enough if the intent
is merely an intent to "deceive". There is a well-known definition
of
this distinction between two kinds
of
intent in the civil case
of
In re London &Globe Finance Corporation, Ltd. (1903 I Ch. 728, 732).
"To
deceive is to induce a
man
to believe
that
athing is true which
is false,
and
which the person practising the deceit knows or believes
to
be false. To
defraud
is to deprive by deceit, it is by deceit to induce
a
man
to act to his injury. More tersely it may be put,
that
to deceive
is by falsehood to induce astate of mind, to defraud is by deceit to
induce acourse
of
action".
The appellant in R. v. Wines said what
To continue reading
Request your trial