The Assizes
| Published date | 01 January 1966 |
| Date | 01 January 1966 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201836603000102 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The
Assizes
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT CHEAT
R. v. Fountain
WH ILE what one person does by way of cheating another in
private may not be a criminal offence,
the
remedy of
the
person cheated in
that
case being a civil action for damages for
acommon law cheat, when two or more combine to cheat
another they are guilty of conspiracy to commit acommon law
cheat although it is not alleged in the indictment
that
the
consequences of
the
cheating had any public manifestation.
The
'public' element in a common law cheat has given rise to
some uncertainty and Lawton, J., at
the
Nottingham assizes,
made this succinct statement of
the
true
legal position (129
J.P.
391).
Two
accused were charged on counts alleging
conspiracy to defraud,
the
particulars in each count being that,
between certain dates, they conspired together and with other
persons unknown to defraud such persons as should be induced
to accept bets made by or on behalf of themselves on certain
football matches by agreeing to ensure
that
certain teams lost
the
matches.
Counsel for
the
defence submitted
that
on the indictment
as drafted there was no case to answer,
but
this submission was
not upheld.
He
argued
that
the allegations set out in the var-
ious counts did not amount to a conspiracy to commit a
common law cheat, because there was no allegation in the
counts that
the
consequences of the cheating had any public
manifestation. Reference was made to the case of R. v.
Wheatley (1761, 2Burr. 1125) in which
Lord
Mansfield, C.J.,
drew a clear distinction between private deceits and those
deceits which have a public manifestation.
He
and the other
judges agreed
that
the
distinction to be drawn was that, if it
was merely a matter between private individuals, it was a
matter for a common law action;
the
public were o aly con-
cerned if there was a public manifestation.
The
Court of
Criminal Appeal adopted these views in R. v. Hudson (1956 2
Q.B. 252).
In
R. v. Bembridge (1783, 22 State Tr. I)
Lord
16
To continue reading
Request your trial