Trying Frauds with a Foreign Element
| Author | Jessica Holroyd,Jason Chuah |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201839405800406 |
| Published date | 01 November 1994 |
| Date | 01 November 1994 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
TRYING
FRAUDS
WITH
A
FOREIGN
ELEMENT
Jessica Holroyd" and Jason Chuah**
Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 is a largely free-standing part of
what is a multifarious Act.
It
is confined to implementing Law Commission
Report No 180, Jurisdiction over Offences
of
Fraud and Dishonesty with a
Foreign Element. The Report itself was a response to the Roskill
Committee on Fraud Trials of 1986, and was motivated by a desire to
maintain confidence in London as an international financial centre by
correcting what were seen as deficiencies in the existing rules of jurisdiction.
The starting point is the rule that the English courts do not in general
claim jurisdiction to try offences committed outside England and Wales.
There are many statutory exceptions outside the realm of fraud, usually
concerned with the requirements of international security.
It
is not
proposed to consider such exceptions further, nor the rules by which the
geographical boundaries of England and Wales are generally determined.
For
more on these matters, see eg Halsbury's Laws, Vol 11(1), paragraph
620.
The general rule for jurisdiction applied unamended until now to most
aspects of the law of fraud. The 1993 Act does not amend the substance
of the rule but, as stated by the Home Secretary during debate, changes
the rules by which the courts decide where an offence has been 'committed'
for these purposes. Judges have tended to take a restrictive view, thus
shortening the reach of English law enforcement. The new provisions
relate both to certain substantive offences
of
dishonesty (Group A
offences) and to incitement, attempt and conspiracy to commit those
offences and conspiracy to defraud (Group B offences).
Group A offences
Jurisdiction over a substantive offence normally depends upon whether it
is a 'result crime' or a 'conduct crime', a distinction which, however
imprecise, is made in most standard texts. In the latter case, a crime is
viewed by the common law as having been committed only where the 'last
act' occurred. This obliges a court to apply refined distinctions to detailed
matters
of
fact.
For
instance, in RvTreacy
[1971]
AC 537 liability for
blackmail turned upon whether a demand contained in a menacing letter
which was posted from England to Germany was made in England.
In the case of result crimes, the ambit of commission is relaxed in
allowing for jurisdiction where some part of the prohibited result occurred
• Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Luton .
..
Lecturer in Law, University of Luton.
388
To continue reading
Request your trial