War Damage Act, 1965
| Date | 01 September 1965 |
| Published date | 01 September 1965 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1965.tb02908.x |
| Author | Paul Jackson |
574
THE
MODERN
LAW
REVIEW
Vor..
28
which have just been mentioned indicate situations in which, with-
out any possible rational justification, statements are admissible
evidence of the facts stated in criminal, but pot in civil, cases.
Nonetheless, those who, like the writer, are convinced that a hun-
dredth of a loaf is better than no loaf at all, will welcome the
Criminal Evidence Act,
1965,
as something which increases, how-
ever slightly and illogically, the area of admissibility of reliable
hearsay evidence.
RUPERT
CROSS.
WAR DAMAGE ACT,
1965
SELDOM
can a statute of any length have led to such controversy
as attended the passing of this Act of two sections. When last
did a Lord Chief Justice of England express himself as forcefully
as Lord Parker who felt
&'
I
should not be able to hold up my head
again were
I
not to come here and remonstrate as strongly as
possible against this Bill
?
"
The Act is of interest not merely for
the change it effects in the law but also for the controversies it
provoked concerning the Rule of Law and retrospective legislation
and the place of the House of Lords in the present Constitution.
Section
1
of
the Act takes away the common law right to compen-
sation for
"
denial damage
''
which had been established to exist
by the House
of
Lords in
Burmah
Oil
Co.
v.
Lord
Advocate.*
The
Act applies to property within,
or
outside the United Kingdom.
It
speaks
of
''
damage
or
destruction
''
of property. Does the common
law right survive when there is a taking without destruction and
no statutory provision covers the case-a distinction which has been
much canvassed in the United States in the light of the wording
of the Fifth Amendment
?
The section extends to
''
acts lawfully
done by,
or
on the authority of, the Crown." Does the latter
phrase provide an alternative to
"
by
Jy
or
to
"
lawfully done by
?
This problem was raised on the Second Reading by
Mr.
Thorpe
who
suggested the Act might extend to
a
person injured by an
unlawful act done
"
on the authority of the Crown." The Govern-
ment spokesman,
Mr.
MacDermot assured the House that the Bill
applied only to lawful acts 5-a view which it is hoped the courts
will follow should the matter ever come before them. The position
of
"
lawfully
"
before
"
done
''
seems to preclude the acceptance
of
Mr.
Thorpe's argument; only if it followed
"
done
')
could, gram-
matically, the sentence be made to refer to two classes of acts-those
done lawfully by and those done on the authority of.
To
come
Noted
(1964) 27
M.L.R.
709;
1
H.L.
Deb.,
Vol.
584,
col.
776.
2
[I9641 2
W.L.R.
1231; [1964] 2
All
E.R.
348.
[1964]
Camb.L.J.
180;
(1965)
14
I.C.L.Q.
1OOO.
3
e.g.,
U.S.
v.
Caltez
(Philippines)
344
U.S.
149 (1952);
97
L.Ed.
157.
4
H.C.
Deb.,
Vol.
705,
wl.
1154.
5
Ibid.
To continue reading
Request your trial