The Kempston Ballast Hole Case
| Author | Keith Simpson,R. V. Gribble |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X4601900304 |
| Published date | 01 July 1946 |
| Date | 01 July 1946 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
180
THE
POLICE
JOURNAL
What offence was
committed?
There
are two possible views.
(I)
It
might be maintained
that
the crime was
"public
mischief."
Such acontention receives
support
from the case of
Kerr
v. Hill (1936
J.e.
71)-more
especially from
Lord
Fleming's statement,
"I
am
prepared to hold
that
if a person maliciously makes a statement, known
to be false, to
the
police authorities, with
the
intention and effect of
causing
them
to make enquiries into it, he commits acriminal offence."
In
principle, one can see no reason for confining this statement of
the
law to complaints made to the police; would it
not
equally apply to
complaints made to an official of a public
department?
Whether one
could carry
the
principle farther and apply it to false statements made,
say, to a tradesman with like effect is a more difficult question. (2) One
may assert with still more confidence
that
the
actings complained of
amounted to fraud (" falsehood, fraud and wilful imposition "), as that
crime has been construed in
the
law of Scotland. Strong
support
for
this opinion is found in
the
case of Adcock (1925
J.e.
58), in which it
was held
that
pecuniary loss by the victim, or pecuniary gain by
the
accused, is
not
an essential element of the crime and
that"
any definite
practical result achieved by
the
fraud is enough." If, by a false story, A
induces B to " do some act he would
not
otherwise have done," the
fraud is complete.
It
is difficult to resist
the
conclusion
that
by trans-
mitting to the housing authorities fictitious complaints which they were
thus
induced to investigate
the
offenders"
defrauded"
the officials and
workmen concerned.
It
is immaterial
that
the offenders gained nothing
beyond the satisfaction of knowing
that
their scheme
had"
worked"
and
that
no one was a penny out of pocket.
Where such a situation arises in practice,
the
safer course, for the
police and for
the
prosecutor, might be to libel public mischief or
alternatively fraud, leaving it to the court to decide which charge was
more appropriate.
The
Kempston Ballast Hole Case
R. v. Gribble
By
DR.
KEITH
SIMPSON
Lecturer
in Forensic Medicine,
Guy's
Hospital,
London
WHE N a hand-to-hand struggle has ended fatally the difference
between manslaughter and murder may rest largely with
the
medical reconstruction of the injuries.
The
kind of blows sustained,
whether they continued after the victim was disabled, or plainly showed
To continue reading
Request your trial