Common Informers Act 1951

Last updated

Common Informers Act 1951
Act of Parliament
Coat of arms of the United Kingdom (1901-1952).svg
Long title An Act to abolish the common informer procedure.
Citation 14 & 15 Geo. 6. c. 39
Introduced bySir Lionel Heald, Private Member's Bill [1] (Commons)
Territorial extent 
  • England and Wales
  • Scotland
  • Northern Ireland
Dates
Royal assent 22 June 1951
Commencement 1 September 1951 [2]
Status: Partially repealed
Text of statute as originally enacted
Text of the Common Informers Act 1951 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from legislation.gov.uk.

The Common Informers Act 1951 (14 & 15 Geo. 6. c. 39) is an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament that abolishes the principle of, and procedures concerning a common informer.

Contents

Background

A common informer was a person who provided evidence in criminal trials, or who prosecuted for breaches of Irish penal laws, solely for the purpose of being rewarded with the penalty recovered, or a share of it. [3] In medieval England, there was no police force and the state bureaucracy was insufficiently well developed to be able to ensure obedience to new laws. The practice of allowing the public to sue for penalties was successful and soon became widespread. [1]

An action by a common informer was termed a "popular" or qui tam action. [3] A legal action by an informer had to be brought within a year of the offence, unless a specific time was prescribed by the statute. [3] The informer had to prove his case strictly and was given no assistance by the court, being denied discovery. [4] [ clarification needed ]

Following the Revolution of 1688 in England, the Popery Act 1698 introduced a reward of £100 for the apprehension of any Roman Catholic priest. [5] The result was that Catholics were placed at the mercy of common informers who harassed them for the sake of gain, even when the government would have left them in peace. [5]

Jonathan Swift described common informers as "a detestable race of people", while Edward Coke called them "viperous vermin". [1]

In 1931, Millie Orpen, a solicitor's clerk, brought an action as a common informer against a cinema chain for opening on a succession of Sundays, contrary to the Sunday Observance Act 1780, s.1. Orpen claimed £25,000 against the cinema company and individual members of its board of directors. The claim was based on a forfeit of £200 per performance per defendant. The judge, Mr Justice Rowlatt, expressed some distaste for the proceedings. He found against the cinema chain, awarding Orpen £5,000, with costs, but found for the individual directors on the grounds there was no evidence they were guilty on any particular Sunday. Costs were awarded to the directors against Orpen. The judge granted a stay pending an appeal by the company. [4] Later in the year Orpen brought a claim against another chain, but was thwarted[ clarification needed ] by a change in the law legalising Sunday opening for cinemas before her case could be decided. [6]

The Act

Many statutes, such as the Simony Act 1588 and the White Herring Fisheries Act 1771, provide for penalties for offenders in breach of the provisions. Before the Common Informers Act 1951, there were further statutory provisions for the levied penalties to be paid over to an informer. For example, section 15 of the Commissioners Clauses Act 1847, [7] as of 2008 still in force, states:

Every person who shall act as a commissioner, being incapacitated or not duly qualified to act, or before he has made or subscribed such declaration as aforesaid, or after having become disqualified, shall for every such offence be liable to a penalty of fifty pounds; and such penalty may be recovered by any person, with full costs of suit, in any of the superior courts; and in every such action the person sued shall prove that at the time of so acting he was qualified, and had made and subscribed the declaration aforesaid, or he shall pay the said penalty and costs without any other evidence being required from the plaintiff than that such person had acted as a commissioner in the execution of this or the special Act; nevertheless all acts as a commissioner of any person incapacitated, or not duly qualified, or not having made or subscribed the declaration aforesaid, done previously to the recovery of the penalty, shall be as valid as if such person had been duly qualified.

The Common Informers Act 1951 removed the right to recover a penalty from 48 Acts, including: [1]

StatuteCitationStatus
Sale of Wares after Close of Fair Act 1331 5 Edw. 3. c. 5Repealed
Quality and Marks of Silver Work Act 1423 2 Hen. 6. c. 17
Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Act 1531 23 Hen. 8. c. 9Repealed
Apprentices Act 1536 28 Hen. 8. c. 5Repealed
Maintenance and Embracery Act 1540 32 Hen. 8. c. 9Repealed [8]
Leases by Corporations Act 1541 33 Hen. 8. c. 27Repealed
Simony Act 1588 31 Eliz. 1. c. 6In force
Sale of Horses Act 1555 31 Eliz. 1. c. 12Repealed
Court Leet Act 1603 1 Jas. 1. c. 5.
Act of Uniformity 1662 14 Cha. 2. c. 4Repealed
Bank of England Act 1694 5 & 6 Will. & Mar. c. 20.In force
Standard of Silver Plate, etc. Act 1696 8 & 9 Will. 3. c. 8.Repealed
Plate Assay Act 1700 12 & 13 Will. 3. c. 4.Repealed
Plate (Offences) Act 1738 12 Geo. 2. c. 26Repealed
Gold and Silver Thread Act 1741 15 Geo. 2. c. 20Repealed 1 January 1975 [9]
Universities (Wine Licences) Act 1743 17 Geo. 2. c. 40.Repealed by Licensing Act 2003
Linen (Trade Marks) Act 1744 18 Geo. 2. c. 24
Disorderly Houses Act 1751 25 Geo. 2. c. 36Repealed
Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1756 29 Geo. 2. c. 23
Bank Notes (Scotland) Act 1765 5 Geo. 3. c. 49Repealed by Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1993
White Herring Fisheries Act 1771 11 Geo. 3. c. 31In force
Plate Assay (Sheffield and Birmingham) Act 1772 13 Geo. 3. c. 52Repealed
Sunday Observance Act 1780 21 Geo. 3. c. 49Repealed
Fires Prevention Act 1785 25 Geo. 3. c. 77
Gold and Silver Thread Act 1788 28 Geo. 3. c. 7
Land Tax Commissioners Act 1798 38 Geo. 3. c. 48
Gold Plate (Standard) Act 1798 38 Geo. 3. c. 69
Partridges Act 1799 39 Geo. 3. c. 34Repealed
Sale of Offices Act 1809 49 Geo. 3. c. 126Repealed by Statute Law (Repeals) Act 2013
Places of Religious Worship Act 1812 52 Geo. 3. c. 155Repealed
Ecclesiastical Courts Act 1813 53 Geo. 3. c. 127Repealed
Apothecaries Act 1815 55 Geo. 3. c. 194
North American Fisheries Act 1819 59 Geo. 3. c. 38Repealed
Levy of Fines Act 1822 3 Geo. 4. c. 46
Juries Act 1825 6 Geo. 4. c. 50
Lighting and Watching Act 1833 3 & 4 Will. 4. c. 90
Ecclesiastical Leases Act 1836 6 & 7 Will. 4. c. 20Repealed by the Statute Law (Repeals) Measure 2018
Metropolitan Police Courts Act 1839 2 & 3 Vict. c. 71Repealed
Public Notaries Act 1843 6 & 7 Vict. c. 90Repealed by Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1993
Commissioners Clauses Act 1847 10 & 11 Vict. c. 16In force
Summary Jurisdiction Act 1848 11 & 12 Vict. c. 43Repealed
Larceny Act 1861 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96
Hosiery Manufacture (Wages) Act 1874 37 & 38 Vict. c. 48Repealed
Seal Fishery Act 1875 38 & 39 Vict. c. 18Repealed
Justices Clerks Act 1877 40 & 41 Vict. c. 43Repealed
Municipal Corporations Act 1882 45 & 46 Vict. c. 50Repealed
Representation of the People Act 1949 12, 13 & 14 Geo. 6. c. 68Repealed

Most of these have themselves been repealed. [10] The Crown was also prohibited from bringing actions as a common informer (s.1(5)). The former penalties were not all abolished but were commuted to £100, later revised to level 3 of the standard scale, [11] though the purpose of this provision was obscure, for it was thought that not even the Crown could now bring such an action. [1]

Subsequent developments

Qui tam claims were codified in the United States under the False Claims Act, under which Abraham Lincoln sought to penalise manufacturers who sold his Army shoddy goods. [12] It saw a revival in the U.S. from 1986 in actions by "whistleblowers". In May 2007 a consultative document [13] from the Home Office Ministry of John Reid raised the question of whether members of the public who informed on companies or individuals defrauding the government should be entitled to a reward. [14] [15] It gained the attention of the House on 24 May 2007: [16]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Vernon Coaker): Seizing criminal assets delivers a wide range of benefits, from depriving criminals of capital to reducing the incentives for crime and the harm caused by crime, as well as promoting fairness and confidence in the criminal justice system. In 2006-07 the total amount recouped by all agencies involved in asset recovery in England, Wales and Northern Ireland was £125 million. This is a five-fold increase over five years. We want to build on this success. The Government are therefore publishing today an Asset Recovery Action Plan. The Action Plan has two purposes. Firstly it sets out robust proposals on how we are to reach our challenging target of recovering £250 million of the proceeds of crime by 2009-10. The Plan goes on to outline, for consultation, policy proposals for taking things further, including some radical ideas to move towards the Government's long term vision of detecting up to £1 billion of criminal assets.

The consultation period will end on 23 November 2007. A copy of the Action Plan is being placed in the Library of the House.

Submissions were obtained from the Fraud Advisory Panel, [17] the Institute of Chartered Accountants, and the Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services, [18] amongst others.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">False Claims Act</span> United States federal law

The False Claims Act (FCA) is an American federal law that imposes liability on persons and companies who defraud governmental programs. It is the federal government's primary litigation tool in combating fraud against the government. The law includes a qui tam provision that allows people who are not affiliated with the government, called "relators" under the law, to file actions on behalf of the government. This is informally called "whistleblowing", especially when the relator is employed by the organization accused in the suit. Persons filing actions under the Act stand to receive a portion of any recovered damages.

Perjury is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official (federal) proceeding.

A statute of limitations, known in civil law systems as a prescriptive period, is a law passed by a legislative body to set the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated. In most jurisdictions, such periods exist for both criminal law and civil law such as contract law and property law, though often under different names and with varying details.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defamation</span> Any communication that can injure a third partys reputation

Defamation is a communication that injures a third party's reputation and causes a legally redressable injury. The precise legal definition of defamation varies from country to country. It is not necessarily restricted to making assertions that are falsifiable, and can extend to concepts that are more abstract than reputation – like dignity and honour. In the English-speaking world, the law of defamation traditionally distinguishes between libel and slander. It is treated as a civil wrong, as a criminal offence, or both.

Nulla poena sine lege is a legal formula which, in its narrow interpretation, states that one can only be punished for doing something if a penalty for this behavior is fixed in criminal law. Variant nullum crimen sine lege establishes that conduct is not criminal if not found among the behavior/cirumstance combinations of a statute. The other interpretations of the formula include the rules prohibiting retroactive criminalization and prescribing laws to be strictly construed.

In common law, a writ of qui tam is a writ through which private individuals who assist a prosecution can receive for themselves all or part of the damages or financial penalties recovered by the government as a result of the prosecution. Its name is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur, meaning "[he] who sues in this matter for the king as well as for himself."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Distraint</span> Seizure of property to obtain payments

Distraint or distress is "the seizure of someone’s property in order to obtain payment of rent or other money owed", especially in common law countries. Distraint is the act or process "whereby a person, traditionally even without prior court approval, seizes the personal property of another located upon the distrainor's land in satisfaction of a claim, as a pledge for performance of a duty, or in reparation of an injury." Distraint typically involves the seizure of goods (chattels) belonging to the tenant by the landlord to sell the goods for the payment of the rent. In the past, distress was often carried out without court approval. Today, some kind of court action is usually required, the main exception being certain tax authorities – such as HM Revenue and Customs in the United Kingdom and the Internal Revenue Service in the United States – and other agencies that retain the legal power to levy assets without a court order.

An accessory is a person who assists, but does not actually participate, in the commission of a crime. The distinction between an accessory and a principal is a question of fact and degree:

Civil recovery is the method in some legal systems employed to recover the proceeds of crime, instead of, or in addition to, criminal court proceedings.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Offences Against the Person Act 1861</span> UK criminal statute

The Offences against the Person Act 1861 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It consolidated provisions related to offences against the person from a number of earlier statutes into a single Act. For the most part these provisions were, according to the draftsman of the Act, incorporated with little or no variation in their phraseology. It is one of a group of Acts sometimes referred to as the Criminal Law Consolidation Acts 1861. It was passed with the object of simplifying the law. It is essentially a revised version of an earlier consolidation act, the Offences Against the Person Act 1828, incorporating subsequent statutes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Brawling (legal definition)</span>

Brawling, in law, was the offence of quarrelling, or creating a disturbance in a church or churchyard. Brawling was covered in ecclesiastic courts until 1860. It has rarely been prosecuted since then.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Act of Uniformity 1548</span> United Kingdom law of religion

The Act of Uniformity 1548, the Act of Uniformity 1549, the Uniformity Act 1548, or the Act of Equality was an Act of the Parliament of England, passed on 21 January 1549.

Although the legal system of Singapore is a common law system, the criminal law of Singapore is largely statutory in nature and historically derives largely from the Indian penal code. The general principles of criminal law, as well as the elements and penalties of general criminal offences such as assault, criminal intimidation, mischief, grievous hurt, theft, extortion, sex crimes and cheating, are set out in the Singaporean Penal Code. Other serious offences are created by statutes such as the Arms Offences Act, Kidnapping Act, Misuse of Drugs Act and Vandalism Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Penal Code (Singapore)</span> Criminal code of Singapore

The Penal Code 1871 sets out general principles of the criminal law of Singapore, as well as the elements and penalties of general criminal offences such as assault, criminal intimidation, mischief, grievous hurt, theft, extortion, sex crimes and cheating. The Penal Code does not define and list exhaustively all the criminal offences applicable in Singapore – a large number of these are created by other statutes such as the Arms Offences Act, Kidnapping Act, Misuse of Drugs Act and Vandalism Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Forgery Act 1861</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Forgery Act 1861 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It consolidated provisions related to forgery from a number of earlier statutes into a single Act. For the most part these provisions were, according to the draftsman of the Act, incorporated with little or no variation in their phraseology. It is one of a group of acts sometimes referred to as the Criminal Law Consolidation Acts 1861. It was passed with the object of simplifying the law. It is essentially a revised version of an earlier consolidation act, the Forgery Act 1830, incorporating subsequent statutes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sunday Observance Act 1780</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Sunday Observance Act 1780 was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain. Originally eight sections long, only sections 1 to 3 were still in force after the 1960s. These sections prohibited the use of any building or room for public entertainment or debate on a Sunday.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Unlawful Drilling Act 1819</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Unlawful Drilling Act 1819, also known as the Training Prevention Act is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It was one of the Six Acts passed after the Peterloo massacre.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal Law Act 1826</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Criminal Law Act 1826 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It was a consolidation Act. It consolidated a large number of Acts relating to criminal procedure. It was due to Sir Robert Peel.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Remission of Penalties Act 1859</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Remission of Penalties Act 1859 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It allows the Crown to remit penalties for offences that are payable to parties other than the Crown.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Forgery of Foreign Bills Act 1803</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Forgery of Foreign Bills Act 1803 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Prior to its repeal in 2013, it created offences of forgery of foreign instruments in Scotland.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Edwards (1951) p. 462
  2. Section 3(3)
  3. 1 2 3 Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Informer"  . Encyclopædia Britannica . Vol. 14 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 556–557.
  4. 1 2 Orpen v. Haymarket Capital Ltd & Others, The Times , July 18, 1931, p.3, col E
  5. 1 2 Burton, E. et al. (1913) "Penal laws, Catholic Encyclopedia
  6. Orpen v. New Empire Ltd and Others, The Times, October 20, 1931, p.4, col C
  7. 10 & 11 Vict. c. 16
  8. Criminal Law Act 1967, s.13(2) Sch.4 Pt.1
  9. Hallmarking Act 1973, s.23/ Sch.7
  10. Schedule - Acts Providing for Common Informer Actions, as amended
  11. Criminal Justice Act 1982, ss. 38, 46
  12. C. Doyle, writing for the Congressional Research Service (2009): "Qui Tam: The False Claims Act and Related Federal Statutes"
  13. Home Office, May 2007: "Asset Recovery Action Plan: A Consultation Document"
  14. Walker (2007)
  15. Home Office (2007)
  16. Hansard, 24 May 2007
  17. Fraud Advisory Panel response to ARAP 2007 Archived 2014-01-01 at the Wayback Machine
  18. "LACORS response to the Home Office Asset Recovery Action Plan consultation" Archived 2014-01-01 at the Wayback Machine

Bibliography