6/14/2017 ScottvCommissionerofPoliceoftheMetropolis[1974]UKHL4(20November1974)

[Home][Databases][WorldLaw][MultidatabaseSearch][Help]
[Feedback]

UnitedKingdomHouseofLords
Decisions

Youarehere:BAILII>>Databases>>UnitedKingdomHouseofLordsDecisions>>ScottvCommissionerofPoliceofthe
Metropolis[1974]UKHL4(20November1974)
URL:http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1974/4.html
Citeas:[1975]AC819,[1974]UKHL4

[Newsearch][BuyICLRreport:[1975]AC819][Help]

JISCBAILII_CASE_CRIME

DieMercurii.20Novembris1974

ParliamentaryArchives,

HL/PO/JU/4/3/1256

HOUSEOFLORDS

SCOTT

v.

COMMISSIONEROFPOLICEFORTHEMETROPOLIS

(OnAppealfromtheCourtofAppeal(CriminalDivision))

LordReid
ViscountDilhorne
LordDiplock
LordSimonofGlaisdale
LordKilbrandon

LordReid

mylords,

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1974/4.html 1/9
6/14/2017 ScottvCommissionerofPoliceoftheMetropolis[1974]UKHL4(20November1974)

Forthereasonsgivenbymynobleandlearnedfriend,ViscountDilhorne,
Iwoulddismissthisappeal.
.

ViscountDilhorne

MYLORDS,
InOctober,1973,theAppellantwasarraignedwithnineothersatthe
CentralCriminalCourtonanindictmentwhichcontained36counts.He
waschargedin15,ofwhichsixchargedhimwithconspiracy.
Thefirstcountwasasfollows:
"StatementofOffence"1stCountConspiracytoDefraud
"ParticularsofOffence

"TerenceJohnAvery,ReginaldJamesThomasCorrigan,Robin
"GrahamOsborne,DonaldIssatt,RaymondFrederickWatson,
"AnthonyPeterJamesScott,ArthurCyrilWhiting,ThomasHerbert
"Chatwin,ArthurHenryTurnerandDonaldEdwardFalaiseHodson
"ondiversedaysbetweenthe1stdayofJanuary1971andthe30thday
"ofDecember1972conspiredtogetherandwithotherpersonsto
"defraudsuchcompaniesandpersonsasmightbecausedlossbythe
"unlawfulcopyinganddistributionoffilmsthecopyrightinwhich
"andthedistributionrightsofwhichbelongedtocompaniesand
"personsotherthanthesaidpersonssoconspiringandbydiversother
"subtlecraftyfraudulentmeansanddevices."
The7thcountchargedhimwithconspiracytocontravenetheprovisions
ofsection21(1)(a)oftheCopyrightAct,1956.
DuringthecourseoftheopeningofthecasefortheprosecutionMr.
BlomCooper,whorepresentedtheAppellant,saidthattheAppellantwas
preparedtoadmit,andtheAppellantdidadmit,thefollowingfacts,namely,
thathe
"Agreedwithemployeesofcinemaownerstemporarilytoabstract,
"withoutpermissionofsuchcinemaowners,andinreturnforpayments
"tosuchemployees,cinematographfilms,withouttheknowledgeor
"consentoftheownersofthecopyrightand/orofdistributionrights
"insuchfilms,forthepurposeofmakinginfringingcopiesand
"distributingthesameonacommercialbasis".
OntheseadmittedfactsMr.BlomCoopersubmittedtheAppellantcould
notbeconvictedonthefirstcount.Hiscontentionthattherecouldnot
beaconspiracytodefraudunlesstherewasdeceitwasrejectedbyJudge
HinesandtheAppellantthenpleadedguiltytothefirstandseventhcounts
andwassentencedtotwoyearsimprisonmentoncountoneandoneyear's
imprisonmentoncounttwo.
TheAppellantappealedagainsthisconvictiononcountoneandthe
sentencesimposedonhim.Mr.BlomCooper'ssubmissionthat,inthe
absenceofdeceit,theconvictionforconspiracytodefraudcouldnotstand

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1974/4.html 2/9
6/14/2017 ScottvCommissionerofPoliceoftheMetropolis[1974]UKHL4(20November1974)

wasrejectedbytheCourtofAppealbutthesentencepassedoncountone
wasreducedtooneyear'simprisonment.
TheCourtofAppealcertifiedthatapointoflawofgeneralpublic
importancewasinvolvedinthedecisiontodismisstheappealagainstcon
victiononcountone,namely,
"Whether,onachargeofconspiracytodefraud,theCrownmust
"establishanagreementtodeprivetheownersoftheirpropertyby
"deceptionorwhetheritissufficienttoproveanagreementto
"prejudicetherightsofanotherorotherswithoutlawfuljustification
"andincircumstancesofdishonesty".
BeforetheHouseMr.BlomCooperputforwardthreecontentions,his
mainonebeingthatwhichhehadadvancedunsuccessfullybeforetheCourt
ofAppealandJudgeHinesthattherecouldnotbeaconspiracytodefraud
withoutdeceit.HefurthercontendedthattheTheftAct,1968,had
abolishedwitheffectfromthe1stJanuary,1969,whentheActcameinto
operation,theoffenceofconspiracytodefraud.Healsocontendedthata
chargeofthecommonlawoffenceofconspiracytodefraudwouldnotlie
inrespectofaconspiracytocommitasummaryoffencecreatedbystatute.
Themanwhohadconspiredtocontravenetheprovisionsofsection21(l)(a)
oftheCopyrightAct,1956,couldnot,hesubmitted,beconvictedof
conspiracytodefraud.
Theanswertothislastsubmissionistobefoundinsection33ofthe
InterpretationAct,1889,whichenacts:
"Whereanactoranomissionconstitutesanoffenceundertwoormore
"Acts,orbothunderanActandatcommonlaw,whetheranysuch
"ActwaspassedbeforeorafterthecommencementofthisAct,the
"offendershall,unlessthecontraryintentionappears,beliabletobe
"prosecutedandpunishedundereitheroranyofthoseActsorat
"commonlaw,butshallnotbeliabletobepunishedtwiceforthesame
"offence."
Mr.BlomCooper'smainsubmissionwasbasedonthewellknowndicta
ofBuckleyJ.inInreLondonandGlobeFinanceCorporation,Limited[1903]
1Ch.728atp.732.
"Todeceiveis,Iapprehend,toinduceamantobelievethatathingis
"truewhichisfalse,andwhichthepersonpractisingthedeceitknows
"orbelievesittobefalse.Todefraudistodeprivebydeceit:itisby
"deceittoinduceamantoacttohisinjury.Moreterselyitmaybe
"put,thattodeceiveisbyfalsehoodtoinduceastateofmindtodefraud
"isbydeceittoinduceacourseofaction".
Mr.BlomCooper,whilenotsubmittingthatanintenttodefraudneces
sarilyincludesanintenttodeceive,neverthelesssubmittedthatamancould
notbedefraudedunlesshewasdeceived.BuckleyJ's.definitionwas,he
said,exhaustiveandastheconspiracychargedincountonedidnotinvolve
anydeceitofthecompaniesandpersonswhoownedthecopyrightandthe
distributionrightsofthefilmswhichhadbeencopied,theconvictiononthat
countcouldnot,hesubmitted,stand.
Inagreatmanyanditmaybethevastmajorityoffraudcasesthefraud
hasbeenperpetratedbydeceitandinmanycasesBuckleyJ's.dictahave
beenquotedinchargestojuries.Itdoesnot,however,followthatitisan
exhaustivedefinitionofwhatismeantby"defraud".BuckleyJ.hadto
decidewhenaprimafaciecasehadbeenshown"ofdoingsomeoroneofthe
"acts"mentionedinsections83and84oftheLarcenyAct,1861,"with

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1974/4.html 3/9
6/14/2017 ScottvCommissionerofPoliceoftheMetropolis[1974]UKHL4(20November1974)

intenttodeceiveordefraud".Hedidnothavetomakeortohavetoattempt
tomakeanexhaustivedefinitionofwhatwasmeantby"defraud".
Stephens'HistoryoftheCriminalLawofEngland(1883)vol.IIatp.121
containsthefollowingpassage:
"FRAUDTherehasalwaysbeenagreatreluctanceamongstlawyers
"toattempttodefinefraudandthisisnotunnaturalwhenweconsider

"thenumberofdifferentkindsofconducttowhichthewordisapplied
"inconnectionwithdifferentbranchesoflawandespeciallyinconnec
"tionwiththeequitablebranchofit,Ishallnotattempttoconstruct
"adefinitionwhichwillmeeteverycasewhichmightbesuggestedbut
"thereislittledangerinsayingthatwheneverthewords'fraud'or
"'intenttodefraud'or'fraudulently'occurinthedefinitionofacrime
"twoelementsatleastareessentialtothecommissionof'thecrime:
"namely,first,deceitoranintentiontodeceiveorinsomecasesmere
"secrecy:and,secondly,eitheractualinjuryorpossibleinjuryoran
"intenttoexposesomepersoneithertoactualinjuryortoariskof
"possibleinjurybymeansofthatdeceitorsecrecy".
Stephensthusrecognisesthatafraudmaybeperpetratedwithoutdeceit
bysecrecyandthatanintenttodefraudneednotnecessarilyinvolveanintent
todeceive.Invol.IllofhisHistoryatpage121hesaysthat:
"Offencesrelatingtopropertyfallintotwoprincipalclassesnamely
"fraudulentoffenceswhichconsistinitsmisappropriationandmis
"chievousoffenceswhichconsistinitsdestructionorinjury.Theftis
"atypicalfraudulentoffence".
Thedefinitionofthecommonlawoffenceofsimplelarcenyhadasoneof
itselementsthefraudulenttakingandcarryingaway(seeHawkins'Pleasof
theCrown6thed.(1777)BookI,134:East'sPleasoftheCrown,vol.II
(1803)553)."Fraudulently"isusedinthedefinitionoflarcenybyabailee
insection3oftheLarcenyAct,1861(24and25Vict.C.96)andinthe
definitionoflarcenyinsection1oftheLarcenyAct,1916.Theftalways
involvesdishonesty.Deceitisnotaningredientoftheft.Thesecitations
sufficetoshowthatconducttobefraudulentneednotbedeceitful.
TheCriminalLawRevisionCommitteeintheirEighthReporton"Theft
"andRelatedOffences(Cmnd.2977)inparagraph33expressedtheview
thattheimportantelementoflarceny,embezzlementandfraudulentcon
versionwas"undoubtedlythedishonestappropriationofanotherperson's
"property"inparagraph35thatthewords"dishonestlyappropriates"
meantthesameas"fraudulentlyconvertstohisownuseorbenefitorthe
"useorbenefitofanotherperson"andinparagraph39that"dishonestly"
seemedtothemabetterwordthan"fraudulently".
ParliamentendorsedtheseviewsintheTheftAct,1968,whichbysection
1(1)definedtheftasthedishonestappropriationofpropertybelongingto
anotherwiththeintentionofpermanentlydeprivingtheotherofit.Section
17ofthatActreplacessections82and83oftheLarcenyAct,1861,and
theFalsificationofAccountsAct,1875.Theoffencescreatedbythose
sectionsandbythatActmadeitnecessarytoprovethattherehadbeenan
"intenttodefraud".Section17oftheTheftActsubstitutesthewords
"dishonestlywithaviewtogainforhimselforanotherorwithintentto
"causelosstoanother"forthewords"intenttodefraud".

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1974/4.html 4/9
6/14/2017 ScottvCommissionerofPoliceoftheMetropolis[1974]UKHL4(20November1974)

If"fraudently"inrelationtolarcenymeant"dishonestly"and"intent
"todefraud"inrelationtofalsificationofaccountsisequivalenttothe
wordsnowcontainedinsection17oftheTheftActwhichIhavequoted,
itwouldindeedbeoddif"defraud"inthephrase,"conspiracytodefraud"
hasadifferentmeaningandmeansonlyaconspiracywhichistobecarried
outbydeceit.
Inthecourseoftheargumentmanycaseswerecited.Itisnotnecessary
torefertoallofthem.Manywerecasesinwhichtheconspiracyallegedwas
todefraudbydeceit.Thosecasesdonotestablishthattherecanonlybea
conspiracytodefraudifdeceitisinvolvedandthereareanumberofcases
wherethatwasnotthecase.
InR.v.Orbell(1703)6Mod42,87E.R.804theindictmentstatedthatthe
defendantshadfraudulentlyandperconspirationern,tocheatJ.S.ofhis
money,gothimtolayacertainsumofmoneyuponafootraceand
prevailedwiththepartytorun"booty".Nofalserepresentationwasmade
toJ.S.andhewasnotledtobelievesomethingtobetruewhichwasinfact
false.

InR.v.Button(1848)3CoxC.C.229thedefendantswerechargedwith
conspiracytousetheiremployers'vatsanddyestodyearticleswhichthey
werenotentitledtodye,tosecureprofitsforthemselvesandsotodefraud
theiremployerofprofit.Therewasnofalsepretenceandnodeceitoftheir
employerbyinducinghimtobelievesomethingtobetruewhichwasfalse.
InR.v.Yates(1853)6CoxC.C.441thedefendantwaschargedwith
conspiracybyfalsepretencesandsubtlemeansanddevicestoextortfromT.E.
asovereignandtocheatanddefraudhimthereof.Therewasnoevidence
ofanyfalsepretencebutCromptonJ.heldthatthewords"falsepretences"
mightberejectedassurplusageandheldthatthedefendantmightbe
convictedofconspiracytoextortanddefraud.Again,inthiscase,therewas
nodeceitofT.E.inducinghimtobelievesomethingtobetruewhichwas
false.
InR.v.DeKromme[1892]17CoxC.C.492thedefendantwasindictedfor
solicitingaservanttoconspiretocheatanddefraudhismasterbysellinghis
master'sgoodsatlessthantheirproperprice.LordColeridgeC.J.saidthat
iftheservanthadsoldthegoodsatlessthantheirproperprice,hisemployer
wouldhavebeendefrauded.Theconvictionwasupheld.Theconspiracy
whichthedefendantwaschargedwithincitingdidnotinvolveanydeceit
oftheemployer.
InR.v.Quinn[1898]19CoxC.C.78thedefendantswereconvictedof
conspiringtocheatanddefraudtheGreatNorthernRailwayofIrelandof
faresbyabstractingreturnhalfticketsandsellingthemtomembersofthe
public.Again,therewasnodeceitoftheiremployers.
InR.v.Radley[1973](unreported)thedefendantswereconvictedof
conspiringtodefraudacompanyinteraliabystealingthepropertyofthat
company.TheCourtofAppealupheldtheirconvictionanditwasnever
suggestedthattheconvictionwasbadonthegroundthatnodeceitof
thecompanywasinvolved.
Indeed,innoneofthesecaseswasitsuggestedthattheconvictionwas
badonthegroundthattheconspiracytodefrauddidnotinvolvedeceitof
thepersonintendedtobedefrauded.Ifthathadbeenavalidgroundfor
quashingtheconvictionitis,Ithink,inconceivablethatthepointwould
nothavebeentaken,ifnotbycounsel,bythecourt.

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1974/4.html 5/9
6/14/2017 ScottvCommissionerofPoliceoftheMetropolis[1974]UKHL4(20November1974)

InWelhamv.DirectorofPublicProsecutions[1961]A.C.103,thisHouse
hadtoconsiderthemeaningof"intenttodefraud"inrelationtoforgery,
inthecourseofhisspeechLordRadcliffesaid(atpage123):
"Now,Ithinkthatthereareoneortwothingsthatcanbesaid
"withconfidenceaboutthemeaningofthisword'defraud'.It
"requiresapersonasitsobject:thatis,defraudinginvolvesdoing
"somethingtosomeone.Althoughinthenatureofthingsitisalmost
"invariablyassociatedwiththeobtainingofanadvantageforthe
"personwhocommitsthefraud,itistheeffectuponthepersonwho
"istheobjectofthefraudthatultimatelydeterminesitsmeaning...
"Secondlypopularspeechdoesnotgive,andIdonotthinkeverhas
"given,anysureguideastothelimitsofwhatismeantby'todefraud'.
"Itmaymeantocheatsomeone.Itmaymeantopractiseafraud
"uponsomeone.Itmaymeantodeprivesomeonebydeceitofsome
"thingwhichisregardedasbelongingtohimor,thoughnotbelonging
"tohim,asduetohimorhisright".
LaterLordRadcliffesaidthathewasunabletoacceptBuckleyJ's
observationsinInreLondonGlobeFinanceCorporation(supra),whichhe
saidwereobiter,asanauthoritativeexpositionofwordsemployedina
subsequentStatute.
Whilethemeaningtobegiventowordsmaybeaffectedbytheircontext
andLordRadcliffewasonlyconsideringthemeaningofintenttodefraud
insection4oftheForgeryAct,1913,thepassageswhichIhavecitedfrom
hisspeechare,Ithink,ofgeneralapplicationandcertainlythosepassages
andhisspeechlendnosupporttothecontentionthattherecannotbea
conspiracytodefraudwhichdoesnotinvolvedeceit.

InthecourseofdeliveringthejudgmentoftheCourtofAppealinR.
v.Sinclair[1968]1W.L.R.1246,wherethedefendantshadbeenconvicted
ofconspiracytocheatanddefraudacompany,itsshareholdersandcreditors
byfraudulentlyusingitsassetsforpurposesotherthanthoseofthecompany
andbyfraudulentlyconcealingsuchuse,JamesJ.said:
"Tocheatanddefraudistoactwithdeliberatedishonestytothe
"prejudiceofanotherperson'sproprietaryright".
Again,onefindsinthiscasenosupportfortheviewthatinorderto
defraudaperson,thatpersonmustbedeceived.
Onemustnotconfusetheobjectofaconspiracywiththemeansbywhich
itisintendedtobecarriedout.InthelightofthecasestowhichIhave
referred,IhavecometotheconclusionthatMr.BlomCooper'smain
contentionmustberejected.Ihavenotthetemeritytoattemptanexhaustive
definitionofthemeaningof"defraud".AsIhavesaid,wordstakecolour
fromthecontextinwhichtheyareused,butthewords"fraudulently"
and"defraud"mustordinarilyhaveaverysimilarmeaning.If,asIthink,
andastheCriminalLawRevisionCommitteeappearstohavethought,
"fraudulently"means"dishonestly"then"todefraud"ordinarilymeans
inmyopiniontodeprivedishonestlyapersonofsomethingwhichishis
orofsomethingtowhichheisorwouldormightbutfortheperpetration
ofthefraud,beentitled.
InWelhamv.DirectorofPublicProsecutions(supra)LordRadcliffe
atpage124referredtoaspeciallineofcaseswherethepersondeceivedis
apersonholdingpublicofficeorapublicauthorityandwheretheperson
deceivedwasnotcausedanypecuniaryoreconomicloss.Forgerywhereby
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1974/4.html 6/9
6/14/2017 ScottvCommissionerofPoliceoftheMetropolis[1974]UKHL4(20November1974)

thedeceithasbeenaccomplishedhad,hepointedout,beeninanumber
ofcasestreatedashavingbeendonewithintenttodefrauddespitethe
absenceofpecuniaryoreconomicloss.

Inthiscaseitisnotnecessarytodecidethataconspiracytodefraudmay
existeventhoughitsobjectwasnottosecureafinancialadvantageby
inflictinganeconomiclossonthepersonatwhomtheconspiracywas
directed.ButformyselfIseenoreasonwhywhatwassaidbyLord
Radcliffeinrelationtoforgeryshouldnotequallyapplyinrelationto
conspiracytodefraud.

Inthiscasetheaccusedbribedservantsofthecinemaownerstosecure
possessionoffilmsinordertocopythemandinordertoenablethemto
letthecopiesoutonhire.BysodoingMr.BlomCooperconcededthey
inflictedmorethannominaldamagetothegoodwilloftheownersofthe
copyrightanddistributionrightsofthefilms.Bysodoingtheysecuredfor
themselvesprofitswhichbutfortheiractionsmighthavebeensecured
bythoseownersjustasinR.v.Button(supra)thedefendantsobtained
profitswhichmighthavebeensecuredbytheiremployer.Inthecircum
stancesitis,Ithink,clearthattheyinflictedpecuniarylossonthoseowners.
InowturntoMr.BlomCooper'ssecondcontentionthattheTheftAct,
1968,impliedlyabolishedtheoffenceofconspiracytodefraud.
Section31(1)ofthatActsofarasmaterialisinthefollowingterms:
"Thefollowingoffencesareherebyabolishedforallpurposesnot
"relatingtooffencescommittedbeforethecommencementofthisAct,
"thatistosay(a)anyoffenceatcommonlawof...and,except
"asregardsoffencesrelatingtothepublicrevenue,cheating...."
Thissectiondoesnotrefertofraudorconspiracytodefraud.Inthe
TheatresAct,1968.passedinthesameyearastheTheftAct,section2
subsection(3)expresslyprovidesthatnopersonshallbeproceededagainst
foranoffenceatcommonlawofconspiringtocorruptpublicmorals.If
ithadbeenParliament'sintentiontoabolishconspiracytodefraudIwould
haveexpectedasimilarprovisionintheTheftAct.

InEast'sPleasoftheCrown,vol.II,atpage818theauthorstatedthat
inhisviewthecommonlawoffenceofcheatingconsistedin:
"Thefraudulentobtainingofthepropertyofanotherbyanydeceitful
"andillegalpracticeortoken(shortoffelony)whichaffectsormay
"affectthepublic".
"Itisnot,however,everyspeciesoffraudordishonestyintrans
"actionsbetweenindividualswhichisthesubjectmatterofacriminal
"chargeatcommonlawbutinordertoconstituteitsuch...itmust
"besuchasaffectsthepublic,suchasispublicinitsnature,calculated
"todefraudnumbers,todeceivethepeopleingeneral".
InR.v.Wheatly(1761)2Burr112797E.R.746,LordMansfieldsaid:
"Theoffencethatisindictablemustbesuchaoneasaffectsthe
"public.Asifamanusesfalseweightsandmeasuresandsellsby
"them...inthegeneralcourseofhisdealing:soifamandefrauds
"anotherunderfalsetokens"

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1974/4.html 7/9
6/14/2017 ScottvCommissionerofPoliceoftheMetropolis[1974]UKHL4(20November1974)

Thecommonlawoffenceofcheatingis,itappears,farnarrowerin
ambitthantheoffenceofconspiracytodefraudandwhileParliamentmay
byinadvertencedothatwhichitdoesnotintendtodo,inmyopinionit
wouldbewrongtoconstruesection31(1)oftheTheftAct,1968,intheway
Mr.BlomCoopersubmits.Ithereforerejecthissecondcontention.
RevertingtothequestionscertifiedbytheCourtofAppeal,theanswer
tothefirstquestionisinmyopinioninthenegative.Iamnotveryhappy
aboutthewayinwhichthesecondquestionisphrasedalthoughtheword
"prejudice"hasbeennotinfrequentlyusedinthisconnection.Ifby
"prejudice"ismeant"injure",thenIthinktheanswertothatquestionis
yes,forinmyopinionitisclearlythelawthatanagreementbytwoor
morebydishonestytodepriveapersonofsomethingwhichishisortowhich
heisorwouldbeormightbeentitledandanagreementbytwoormore
bydishonestytoinjuresomeproprietaryrightofhis,sufficestoconstitute
theoffenceofconspiracytodefraud.
Inmyopinionthisappealshouldbedismissed.

LordDiplock
MYLORDS,
Ihavehadtheadvantageofreadingthespeechofmynobleandlearned
friendViscountDilhorne.Iagreewithit.Theauthoritiesthathecites
andotherscitedinthespeechesinthisHouseinthecontemporaneousappeal
inR.v.Withers,inmyview,establishedthefollowingpropositions.
1.Althoughatcommonlawnocleardistinctionwasoriginallydrawn
betweenconspiraciesto"cheat"andconspiraciesto"defraud",these
termsbeingfrequentlyusedincombination,bytheearlyyearsofthe
nineteenthcentury"conspiracytodefraud"hadbecomeadistinct
speciesofcriminalagreementindependentoftheoldcommonlawsub
stantiveoffenceof"cheating".Theabolitionofthissubstantivecommon
lawoffencebysection31(l)(a)oftheTheftAct,1968,exceptasregards
offencesrelatingtothepublicrevenue,thusleavessurvivingandintact
thecommonlawoffenceofconspiracytodefraud.
2.Wheretheintendedvictimofa"conspiracytodefraud"isa
privateindividualthepurposeoftheconspiratorsmustbetocausethe
victimeconomiclossbydeprivinghimofsomepropertyorright,cor
porealorincorporeal,towhichheisorwouldormightbecomeentitled.
Theintendedmeansbywhichthepurposeistobeachievedmustbedis
honest.Theyneednotinvolvefraudulentmisrepresentationsuchasis
neededtoconstitutetheciviltortofdeceit.Dishonestyofanykindis
enough.

(3)Wheretheintendedvictimofa"conspiracytodefraud"isa
personperformingpublicdutiesasdistinctfromaprivateindividualitis
sufficientifthepurposeistocausehimtoactcontrarytohispublicduty,
andtheintendedmeansofachievingthispurposearedishonest.The
purposeneednotinvolvecausingeconomiclosstoanyone.
Intheinstantcasetheintendedvictimsoftheconspiracytodefraudwere
privateindividuals.Thefactsbringitsquarelywithinproposition2above.
Thedishonestmeanstobeemployedwereclandestinebribery.
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1974/4.html 8/9
6/14/2017 ScottvCommissionerofPoliceoftheMetropolis[1974]UKHL4(20November1974)

Iwoulddismisstheappeal.

LordSimonofGlaisdale
MYLORDS,
Ihavehadtheadvantageofreadingindraftthespeechpreparedbymy
nobleandlearnedfriend,ViscountDilhorne.IagreewithitandIwould
thereforedismissthisappeal.

LordKilbrandon
MYLORDS,
Ihavehadtheadvantageofreadingthespeechpreparedbymynoble
andlearnedfriend,LordDilhorne.Iagreewithit,andwoulddismissthis
appeal.

316008Dd89625212011/74St

BAILII:CopyrightPolicy|Disclaimers|PrivacyPolicy|Feedback|DonatetoBAILII
URL:http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1974/4.html

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1974/4.html 9/9