9911796707
TMI Blog1944 (5) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in its own lorries driven by its own servants, and partly by sub-contractors who were paid by the appellant company at the rate of 7s. 6d. a cubic yard. The substance of the charge against the defendants, who consisted of the managing director of the appellant company, two of the appellant company's lorry drivers, a number of sub-contractors and two servants of Messrs. Rice, who it was alleged were in a position to check the deliveries of hard core, was that they agreed together to charge Messrs. Rice for a quantity of hard core in excess of that which was in fact delivered. At the trial a motion was made on behalf of the appellant company to quash the indictment against it, which motion the Commissioner refused. After the trial at the Kent Assizes, which lasted twelve days, the jury returned a verdict of guilty against the appellant company, its managing director and the two drivers of the company, the two servants of Messrs. Rice and one of the sub-contractors. The other defendants, who were all sub-contractors, were found not guilty and were discharged. All the defendants against whom a verdict of guilty was returned, with the exception of the one sub-contractor, appealed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the general rule and arose from the limitations which must inevitably attach to an artificial entity such as a company. Included in these exceptions are the cases where, from its very nature, the offence cannot be committed by a corporation, as, for example, perjury, an offence which cannot be vicariously committed, or bigamy, an offence which a limited company, not being a natural person, cannot commit, vicariously or otherwise. A further exception, but for a different reason, comprises offences of which murder is an example, where the only punishment the Court can impose is corporal, the basis on which this exception rests being that the Court will not stultify itself by embarking on a trial in which, if a verdict of guilty is returned, no effective order by way of sentence can be made. In our judgment these contentions of the respondent are substantially sound, and the existence of these exceptions, and it may be that there are others, is by no means inconsistent with the general rule. The appellant company relied on a number of authorities, including Pearks, Gunston and Tee, Ltd. v. Ward [1902] 71 LJKB 656; [1902] 2 KB 1, a decision under section 6 of the Food and Drugs Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rectly in point on the question which we have to decide. In Mousell Brothers v. London and North Western Railway [1917] 2 KB 836; 87 LJKB 82, it was held that a limited company was properly convicted of an offence under section 99 of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, of giving a false account with intent to avoid the payment of tolls, the basis of the decision being that in relation to that section there was no distinction between a limited company and a natural principal. In our judgment that case does not determine the question which we have to decide one way or the other, inasmuch as the construction which the Court placed on that section of the Act of Parliament was that it made the principal criminally responsible for the act of the servant, irrespective of whether the principal was a natural or artificial person, or had or had not present in his own mind the intention which was a necessary ingredient in the offence. It did not decide that in no circumstances could a criminal intention in the mind of a servant or agent be imputed to a principal who is a limited company. The authority latest in date which the appellant cited in support of its contention was R. v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the Judges below in this case. If this means a corporation, I quite agree that a corporation cannot commit a crime, in one sense-a corporation cannot be imprisoned, if imprisonment be the sentence for the crime; a corporation cannot be hanged and put to death, if that be the punishment for the crime. In all those senses, a corporation cannot commit a crime. But a corporation may be fined, or may pay damages; and I must totally dissent, notwithstanding what Bramwell, L.J., said, or is reported to have said, from the supposition that a corporation that incorporated itself for publishing a newspaper could not be fined, or an action for damages brought against it for a libel; or that a corporation which commits a nuisance could not be convicted of the nuisance or the like. I must really say I do not feel the slightest doubt about that part of the case, and I think if we could get over the first difficulty of saying-that the 'person' here may be construed to include an artificial person, a corporation, I should not have the least difficulty upon the other grounds which have been suggested." Lord Blackburn's emphatic expression of opinion that a limited company can be indicted and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deceive or to have knowledge of the truth or falsity of a statement," and after dealing with a number of authorities he proceeded : "The offences created by the regulation are those of doing something with intent to deceive or of making a statement known to be false in a material particular. There was ample evidence, on the facts as stated in the special case, that the company, by the only people who could act or speak or think for it, had done both these things, and I can see nothing in any of the authorities to which we have been referred which requires us to say that a company is incapable of being found guilty of the offences with which the respondent company was charged." In his judgment in the same case Macnaghten, J., said as follows (14 Comp. Cas. at p. 142; [1944] 1 K. B., at p. 156): It can only know "through its human agents, and it can only form an intention through its human agents, but circumstances may be such that the knowledge of the agent must be imputed to the body corporate. ... If the responsible agent of a body corporate, acting within the scope of his authority, puts forward on its behalf a document which he knows to be false and by which he intends to deceiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
