Simmons v R

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: MacGregor, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 29 April 1960
• Neutral Citation: JM 1960 CA 5
• Court: Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
• Date: 29 April 1960

Court of Appeal

MacGregor, C.J.; Cools-Lartigue, J.A.; Duffus, J.A.

Simmons

and

R.

Appearances:

Ramsay for the appellant.

Vanderpump for the Crown.

Criminal law - Public mischief — Decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal (England) followed in Jamaica.

MacGregor, C.J.

1 The appellant was convicted by a resident magistrate, Kingston, on an indictment charging her with having effected a public mischief in that, by means of a false statement that she did not receive a registered letter mailed from Nassau and addressed to her and that the signature on a delivery slip was not written by her, she caused members of the Jamaica Constabulary Force to devote their time and service to the investigation of a false allegation. The indictment followed the precedent in Archbold (33rd Edn.) at p.1276.

2 For the appellant it was submitted that the offence of public mischief no longer exists except in so far as it is concerned with a conspiracy and, that the facts of the case do not amount to this offence. We allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction, promising to put our reasons in writing which we now do.

3 In R. v. Manley (1) the headnote states ( (1933) 24 Cr. App. Rep. at p. 25):

“The Common Law misdemeanour of effecting a public mischief, defined in Higgins (2 East at p.21) as comprising ‘all offences of a public nature, that is, all such acts or attempts as tend to the prejudice of the community,’ is still an offence known to the law.

A person who makes a false statement to the police, in which he represents himself as the victim of an imaginary robbery and gives a description of the supposed assailant, is guilty of effecting a public mischief.”

4 But in 1953 the case of R. v. Newland (2) came before the Court of Criminal Appeal. In that case it was held that - and we here quote from Archbold (34th Edn.), para.3481:

“the right approach to cases of public mischief is to regard them as part of the law of conspiracy, and to hold the actions of an individual not committed in conjunction with others as indictable only if they constitute what has been held in the past to be a common law or statutory offence;”

5 The appellants were convicted of conspiracy to effect a public mischief. It was held that the particulars of offence sufficiently alleged a common law misdemeanour.

6 In delivering the judgment of the Court, Lord Goddard, C.J. ( [1953] 2 All E.R.at p.1072) said:

“We cannot leave this part of the case without referring to R. v. Manley (1) a case binding on this Court though it has been subject to considerable criticism.”

7 And he continued (ibid., at p.1073):

“With all respect to a case which, as we have said, is binding on us, we believe that the right approach to what may be compendiously called public mischief cases is to regard them as part of the law of conspiracy, and to hold the actions of an individual not committed in combination with others as indictable only if they constitute what has been held in the past to be common law or statutory offences. It may be that Manley's case (1) will some day be considered by the House of Lords and in any case we venture to think that it would be a useful reform if such conduct as was there disclosed were made a summary offence by the legislature. We need not further enlarge on it as the charge we are now considering was one of conspiracy except to say that, in our considered opinion, the safe course is no longer to follow it.”

8 In Joshua v. R .(3), Lord Oakley in delivering the judgment of the Judicial Committee stated ( [1955] 1 All E.R.at p.25):

“The first question [i.e., whether apart from cases of conspiracy there is any common law offence of effecting a public mischief) is one of general importance upon which there are...