- Published on
KembaraXtra- Case Law -Simmonds v Newell (1953) QBD
This case hinges on the defence available under Section 3(2) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 when a defendant is prosecuted for breaching a statutory instrument that hasn't been properly published.
I. Key Facts:
This case hinges on the defence available under Section 3(2) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 when a defendant is prosecuted for breaching a statutory instrument that hasn't been properly published.
I. Key Facts:
- The Offence: A company and its directors were prosecuted for selling steel above the maximum price set by the Iron and Steel Prices Order 1951.
- The Defence (Section 3(2) SIA 1946): This section states that in a prosecution for breaching a statutory instrument, it's a defence to prove the instrument wasn't published by His Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO) unless the Crown proves "reasonable steps" were taken to publicise it to the relevant public. Crucially, the burden of proving publication rests on the prosecution (the Crown).
- The Issue: The Ministry of Supply chose not to print the schedules containing the crucial maximum prices. While the schedules were available for inspection at Steel House and some copies were distributed through trade associations, this was deemed insufficient publication.
- The Divisional Court quashed the convictions. They ruled that because the Crown failed to provide evidence that reasonable steps had been taken to publicise the Order (specifically, the crucial price schedules), the defendants' defence under Section 3(2) succeeded.
- Lord Goddard CJ's crucial statement: He emphasized the undesirability of prosecuting individuals for breaking rules they couldn't reasonably be expected to know about. This highlights a fundamental principle of fairness in criminal law.
- Section 3(2) Statutory Instruments Act 1946: This section provides a specific defence against prosecution for breaching an unpublished statutory instrument. The prosecution must prove reasonable steps were taken towards publication. Failure to do so leads to acquittal.
- Burden of Proof: The burden of proving that reasonable steps towards publication were taken rests on the prosecution, not the defendant. This is a crucial aspect of the case.
- Rule of Law: The case reinforces the principle that the law should be accessible and known to those it affects. Prosecution without adequate publication undermines this principle. It's unfair to punish individuals for unknowingly breaking the law.
- Reasonable Steps: The case demonstrates that merely making the instrument available for inspection at a central location and through limited distribution channels does not automatically constitute "reasonable steps" for the purposes of Section 3(2). The court implies that a much wider dissemination effort is usually necessary for effective publication.
- What are the key elements of Section 3(2) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946?
- Who bears the burden of proof regarding publication in cases under Section 3(2)?
- Why did the court find that the Crown had not met its burden of proof in Simmonds v Newell?
- Explain the significance of Lord Goddard CJ's statement regarding the desirability of prosecuting individuals for breaches of orders.
- How does this case demonstrate the importance of the rule of law in relation to criminal prosecutions?
- What would constitute "reasonable steps" to publish a statutory instrument in your opinion? Consider the nature of the instrument and the audience it affects.
0 Comments