620 / 736
Crime
.
,
Their Lordships gave reasons for holding on October
14 that Eugene Anthony Treacy, who posted in the Isle
of Wight a letter written by him and addressed to and
received by a Mrs. X in Frankfurt, Germany was rightly
held guilty of blackmail within section 21 of the Theft
Act, 1968.
They had dismissed by a majority (Lord Reid and
Lord Morris dissenting) an apeal by the appellant against
the decision of the Court of Appeal (The Lord Chief
Justice, Lord Justice Karminski and Mr. Justice John
Stephenson)
(The Times,
August 5; [1970] 3 W.L.R. 592)
dismissing his appeal against his conviction at the Cen
tral Criminal Court (Judge King-Hamilton) last Decem
ber.
Section 21 reads: "A person is guilty of blackmail if
... he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces
Section 29 (1) of the Larceny Act, 1916, which was
replaced by the Theft Act, provided: "(1) Every person
who—(i) utters .
.
.
any letter or writing demanding of
any prson with menaces .
.
.
shall be guilty of felony
'
[Treacy v. D.P.P. House of Lords. (1971). 2 WLR 112]
The defence of "necessity"
to
justify an otherwise
unlawful act is of very limited application in the law
of England and does not extend to justify persons in
desperate need of houses squatting
in empty council
properties for an indefinite period. Nor is
the
local
authority under a duty enforceable by the courts to
provide temporary accommodation for persons in urgent
need thereof, under section 21 of the National Assist
ance Act, 1948, unless the urgent need has been created
by an emergency such as fire or flood.
[Southwark London Borough Council v. Williams;
Same v. Anderson, Court of Appeal.
The Times,
17
December, 1970.]
A person is not obliged to comment when informed
that someone has accused him of an offence and his
silence alone cannot give rise to the inference that he
has accepted the truth of the accusation.
[R. v. Hull Privy Council
The Times,
5 Decem
ber, 1970.]
When a load is carried on an articulated vehicle and
the weight is partly borne by the tractor, the tractor
is to be disregarded when measuring the overall length
for the purpose of determining whether an offence has
been committed against regulation III (4)
(a) of the
Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations,
1969, and section 64 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960,
as amended.
[A. Stevens & Co. (Haulage) Ltd. v. Brown.]
The conviction of a man against whom the evidence
was overwhelming was quashed because of improper
pressure the trial judge put on him and his counsel to
plead Guilty. Their Lordships allowed an appeal by
Michael Barnes, of Forest Hill, S.E., who was convicted
at the Central Criminal Court (Judge King-Hamilton)
in February of robbery and three counts of burglary.
He had been sentenced to six years' imprisonment.
[R. v. Barnes.
Court of Appeal.
The Times, E
December. 1970.]
When counsel for an appellant against sentence sub
mitted in the Court of Appeal that a suspended sentence
for robbery should not have been brought into oper
ation the following year consecutively with a sentence
then being passed for assaulting a policeman, the Lord
Chief Justice said: "There is a hopeless misconception
among criminals that if, with a suspended sentence, they
commit an offence of a completely different character
they will not have the suspended sentence brought into
operation. The sooner they are disillusioned about that
the better."
[R. v. Stevens.
Court of Appeal.
The Times,
17
November, 1970.]
The Court said that the Theft Act, 1968, did not aban
don the basic conception both of the common law and
of earlier legislation that there could be no theft with
out an "intention of permanently depriving" another of
his property, and that although there was no statutory
definition of those words, section 6 (1) sought to clarify
their meaning, not to cut down the definition of "theft"
in section 1
(1).
[R. v. Warner.
Court of Appeal.
The Times,
24
November. 1970.]
The principle applying to an order for payment of
compensation is completely different from that applic
able to an order to pay a fine or costs, the Court stated
when refusing to interfere with a compensation order
against a man convicted of burglary and sentenced to
imprisonment. The Lord Chief Justice said: "If a man
takes someone else's money or goods it is only right
that he should do all he can to make good the loss."
[R. v. Ironfield. Court of Appeal.
The Times
18
November, 1970.]
Damages
Interest on damages which
the court must award
when giving judgment in personal injuries cases cannot
be obtained by a plaintiff signing interlouutory judge
ment with an order for the damages to be assessed by
a judge after money has been paid into court.
[Blundell v. Rimmer. Payne J.
The Times,
4 December
1970.]
Damages of £37,500 awarded to a former farm worker
aged 22, who became a quadraplegic after receiving
severe injuries in a car accident were reduced by £4.875.
[Agar v. Elliott & Another. Court of Appeal
The
Times,
13 November, 1970.]
Drainage
In a reserved judgment, the Supreme Court has dis
missed an appeal by the Commissioners of Public Works
in an action arising out of proposed drainage works on
the River Maigue.
The Court ruled that the scheme, and the notices
served in purported compliance with the Arterial Drain
age Act, 1945, are not in conformity with the provisions
of the Act and are ultra vires and invalid.
The appeal was against the finding of the President
of the High Court, Mr. Justice O'Keeffe, that the Maigue
Catchment Drainage Scheme prepared by the Com
missioners was not in conformity with the powers con-
160