Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

©The Hong Kong Lawyer

Reproduced with permission of the Hong Kong Lawyer, the Official Journal of the Law Society of Hong Kong.

The peculiar case of Rex v Puddle

Stare Decisis will appear from time to time to remind you that the law has its humorous side. This month's case is from AP Herbert's 'Misleading Cases' - originally published in the English magazine Punch.

The Hammersmith Blackmail case was concluded at the Old Bailey today.

The Conduct Complained of

Now, Mr Haddock, the complaining witness in this case, received a letter from the prisoner demanding money. The letter was printed in ink of a bright red colour, and that is a circumstance which you may well take into account when you come to consider the intention of the letter and the effect which it may have had upon the mind of the recipient. For red is notoriously the colour of menace, of strife, of bloodshed and danger; and it is worthy of note that the prisoner's previous communications to Mr Haddock had been printed in a quiet and pacific blue. The letter was as follows:

Mr Justice Trout (addressing the jury): Gentlemen, this is a very grave case. The prisoner in the dock, a Collector of Taxes for the district of South Hammersmith, stands charged with the odious crime commonly described as blackmail. That expression dates from very early times, when it was the custom to pay tribute to men of influence who were allied with certain robbers and brigands for protection from the devastations of the latter. The practice was made illegal by a statute of Queen Elizabeth's time, and ever since has been classified by our Courts as among the most contemptible and dangerous offences. A person who, knowing the contents, sends or delivers a letter or writing demanding with menaces and without reasonable cause any chattel, money, or other property, commits a felony, and is liable to penal servitude for life. The menace, the 'putting in fear', as our ancestors expressed it, is of the essence of the crime. The spectacle of one man demanding money from another must always be painful to the civilized mind; but when in addition that other is made to fear for his safety, liberty, or reputation the law steps in to protect and punish.

'Collector', I may observe in passing, was in other centuries a word commonly used to denote a highwayman [Footnote 1]. But you will not allow that point to influence you unduly.

Footnote 1: In Rex v Strauss (1928) 9 Cr App R 91, a bailiff acting for the Inland Revenue was struck and killed with a book of sermons while removing, from the premises of the accused, a wireless set belonging to the accused; as well as two Rabbits, the property of a favourite daughter. The defence was that distress for income tax was a gross provocation comparable to the discovery of a wife in the arms of another (see Rex v Mouldy, 1 Ventris 158), and such as to produce an uncontrollable impulse depriving a man of the ordinary powers of self-control. The jury, without leaving the box, returned a verdict of 'Justifiable Homicide'; but the following day was Derby Day, and therefore the decision is not regarded as settled law.

So, Is This Blackmail?

Now the 'demand' is clear; indeed the word, as you will notice, is printed in block capitals. And you have to say, first of all, whether or not that 'demand' is accompanied by menaces. You will take everything into consideration, the terseness, I almost said the brutality, of the language, the intimidating red ink, the picking out in formidable capitals of the words 'DEMAND', 'SEVEN DAYS', and 'DISTRAINT'; and any other circumstances which may seem to you calculated to cause alarm in the mind of the recipient.

You will observe in particular the concluding words, 'Steps will be taken for recovery by DISTRAINT, with costs.'

'DISTRAINT'. What is the exact meaning of that? It means the forcible seizure of a person's goods; it means the invasion of his home by strangers; it amounts to licensed burglary; it means the loss not only of favourite possessions but of reputation; it means distress to wife and family, and it is significant that the correct and common term for the process is 'Distress'. Evidence has been given that a threat 'to put the bailiffs in' brings terror to any home. The complaining witness in this case has sworn that, without opportunity to state his case in a court of law, his goods would be seized and his wife and family put in fear by the prisoner. The prisoner says that that was not his intention: that the words 'steps will be taken for recovery' indicated a preliminary summons to the Court. You may think that in that case he would have done better to print those words in the same large type as the word 'DISTRAINT'; and you may think, as I do, looking at all the circumstances, that the letter was deliberately planned and worded with the intention of creating alarm, and, through that alarm, extracting money from Mr Haddock, who is a sensitive man.

Was There Reasonable Cause for This Menacing Conduct?

You will then have to ask yourselves, was this menacing demand for money made with reasonable cause? You will bear in mind that Mr Haddock is not a debtor nor a criminal; he has not taken another's property nor done any disgraceful thing. His only offence is that by hard work he has earned a little money; and the suggestion is now made that he shall give away a fourth part of that money to other people. That being his position, you might well expect that he would be approached not with brusqerie but with signal honours, not with printed threats but with illuminated addresses. But the whole tenor of the prisoner's communication suggests that in his opinion Mr Haddock is a guilty person. Observe the strange use of the word 'recovery' - as if Mr Haddock had taken money from the prisoner. Mr Haddock has made repeated protests to the Collector and to his confederate, the Inspector, urging that even under the strange customs of our land the sum demanded of him was excessive, that due allowance had not been made for the particular hardships and expenses of his professional calling, and that in his judgment the prisoner and his principals have taken from him during the past years money which they ought in conscience to restore. While this dispute was still proceeding the prisoner sent this letter . Mr Haddock, a public-spirited man, conveyed the letter to the police, and it is for you to say whether he was right in doing so. An official from the Inland Revenue Department has drawn your attention to the difficulties of a certain Lord Snowden, the prisoner's principal, who, it appears, is in need of money. You will pay no attention to that. We are all in need of money; and if this Lord Snowden has an insufficient supply of money he must spend less money, as the rest of us have to do. Neither his avarice nor his extravagance can excuse a breach of the law.

The Verdict

The jury eagerly found the prisoner guilty of blackmail, and he was sentenced to penal servitude for life, and solitary confinement for ten years, the sentences to run consecutively. The Court congratulated Mr Haddock.
 

稅務還是 勒索案件﹖

罕有的案例 Rex v Puddle

本欄又跟大家見面了。今期將 與各位分享另一宗有趣的案 例。案中的被告人是 South Hammersmith 地區的稅務官，他向欠繳稅款的申訴人發出了一封帶有恐嚇性字眼的函件，從而讓自己惹上是次的官非。

Rex v Puddle

案中的申訴證人 Haddock 先生某天收到向他索取金錢的函件，信中內容以鮮紅的油墨顯示。紅色一向予人威嚇、鬥爭、殺戮、危險等等的感覺。而且，被告人先前與 Haddock 先生的通信內容一向是以藍色顯示的，該封函件的內容寫道：

鑑於在較早前向閣下發出要求支付在 1930 年 1 月 1 日到期的 1929 至 1930 年度稅款之申請書不具效力，本人現要求閣下繳交稅款，並在此向閣下發出最後通知，假如在發出此信之日起計的七天內仍不繳款或把稅款按上述地址寄結本人，本人將採取步驟，透過扣押財物追討有關款項，並由閣下支付所需費用。

（簽署）
E Puddle
稅務官

裁決

Trout 法官指出，被告人的「要求」十分清楚，因為在原文中該未已由英文正楷顯示。但被告人的「要求」是否帶有恐嚇成分呢？陪審團所須考慮的因素包括那使人受到威嚇的紅色油墨、以英文正楷突出「要求」、「七天」、「扣押財物」的詞語，以及其他陪審團認為會使收信人受驚的情況。信末最後一句寫道：本人將採取步驟，透過扣押財物追討有關款項，並由閣下支付所需費用。其中「扣押財物」一詞，意味著強行檢取某人的貨物、家居會被陌生人闖入、心愛的財物和名譽均會失去等等。案中的申訴證人在宣誓後表示，他若不能在法庭陳述其案，他的貨物將被他人檢取，而其妻子及家人將因被告人的關係而活在驚惶之中。

雖然被告人否認這個目的，可是法官認為該封信件是被告人蓄意設計的，並旨在以言詞使 Haddock 先生及其家人感到驚恐，從而向他榨取金錢。Haddock 先生既非債務人也非罪犯，他亦沒有奪去他人的財產，或是作出任何不光彩的事情。可是被告人在信函中卻指出他認為 Haddock 是有罪的人，信中「追討」一詞好像暗示 Haddock 先生曾由被告人處拿取了金錢一樣。事實上，Haddock 先生曾多次向稅務官及其同謀抗議他們多年來向他敲詐勒索，而且亦沒體諒他的困難而給予寬限。被告人正是在有關糾紛仍在進行期間，向 Haddock 先生發出涉案的函件。

陪審團最後判被告人勒索罪成，他被判處終身監禁，以及被隔離監禁十年，兩項刑期同期執行。

〔案件摘自 AP Herbert 著 Misleading Cases，原載於英國雜誌 Punch。〕