DOCSLIB.ORG

Cases and Materials on Criminal Law

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cases and Materials on Criminal Law Cases and Materials on Criminal Law Michael T Molan Head ofthe Division ofLaw South Bank University Graeme Broadbent Senior Lecturer in Law Bournemouth University PETMAN PUBLISHING Contents Preface ix Acknowledgements x Table ofcases xi Table of Statutes xxiii 1 External elements of liability 1 Proof - Woolmington v DPP - Criminal Appeal Act 1968 - The nature of external elements - R v Deller - Larsonneur - Liability for omissions - R v Instan - R v Stone and Dobinson - Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner - R v Miller - R v Speck - Causation in law -Äv Pagett - Medical treatment - R v Sw/YA - R v Cheshire - The victim's reaction as a «ovtt.j öcto interveniens — Rv Blaue - R v Williams 2 Fault 21 Intention -Äv Hancock and Shankland - R v Nedrick - Criminal Justice Act 1967 s.8 - Recklessness -fiv Cunningham - R v Caldwell - R v Lawrence - Elliott \ C -R\ Reid -Rv Satnam; R v Kevra/ - Coincidence of acft« re«i and /nens rea - Thabo Meli v R - Transferred malice -Rv Pembliton -Rv Latimer 3 Liability without fault 56 Cundy v Le Cocq - Sherras v De Rutzen - SWef v Parsley - L/OT CA/« /4/£ v R - Gammon Ltd v Attomey-General for Hong Kong - Pharmaceutical Society ofGreat Britain v Storkwain 4 Factors affecting fault 74 Mistake - Mistake of fact negativing fault -Rv Tolson - DPP v Morgan - Mistake as to an excuse or justification - R v Kimber - R v Williams (Gladstone) - Beckford v R - Intoxication - DPP v Majewski - Rv Caldwell - Rv Hardie - R v Woods - R v O'Grady - Mental Disorder - M'Naghten's Case -Rv Kemp - Rv Sullivan - R v Hennessy - Rv Windle - Automatism - Bratty v Attomey-General for Northern lreland - Rv Quick - Rv Bailey - R v Burgess 5 Compulsion 114 Necessity - R v Dudley and Stephens — R v Bourne - R v Martin — Duress - Ä v Graham - R v Howe — R v Fitzpatrick - Self-defence and the prevention of crime - Defence of oneself - Ä v Mclnnes - Palmer v R — Criminal Law vi Contents Act 1967 - Defence of others - Devlin v Armstrong - Defence of property - Attorney-GeneraVs Reference (No 2 of 1983) 6 Modes of liability 138 Accessorial - Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 - Magistrates Courts Act 1980 - Criminal Law Act 1967 - Modes of liability - Attomey-General's Reference (No 1 of 1975) - Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority - R v Calhaem -Rv Clarkson - Mens rea for secondary parties - R v Bainbridge - Chan Wing-Siu v R - Exceeding the scope of the agreement - R v Anderson and Morris - R v Hyde - R v Saunders and Archer - R v Baldessare -R\ Betts and Ridley - Withdrawal -R\ Becerra and Cooper - R v Whitefield - R v Rook - Innocent agency - R v Cogan and Leak - R v Howe - Vicarious Liability - Vane v Yiannopoullos - R v Winson - Corporate liability - Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass - R v P & O European Fernes (Dover) Ltd 7 Preliminary offences 170 Incitement - Invicta Plastics v Cläre — R v Curr — Criminal Law Act 1977 - Criminal Justice Act 1987 - R v Anderson — R v Siracusa — Criminal Attempts Act 1981 - R v Gullefer -Rv Campbell -Rv Jones -Rv Khan - Attomey-General's Reference (No 1 of 1992) - Going Equipped — Theft Act 1968, s.25 -Rv Bundy -Rv Ellames - Impossibility - DPP v Nock -Rv Shivpuri - Rv Fitzmaurice 8 Homicide 198 Provocation - Homicide Act 1957, s.3 - DPP v Camplin - R v Newell - Rv Ahluwalia - R v Johnson - R v Ibrams and Gregory - R v Thornton - R v Ahluwalia - Diminished Responsibility - Homicide Act 1957, s.2 - R v Byrne - R v Sanders - R v Seers - R v Gittens - R v Tandy - Involuntary manslaughter - R v Lamb - R v Cato - R v Dolby - R v Mitchell - R v Goodfellow - R v Watson - DPP v Newbury and Jones - R v Seymour - Kong CheukKwan v R-Rv Prentice 9 Non-fatal offences against the person: assaults 231 Criminal Justice Act 1988, s.39 - DPP v Taylor, DPP v Linie - Offences against the Person Act 1861, s.47 - Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner -Rv Miller -Rv Roberts -Rv Venna - Offences against the Person Act 1861, s.20 - R v Clarence - R v Wilson - R v Mowatt -Rv Savage; R v Parmenter - Offences against the Person Act 1861, s.18 - R v Belfon - Offences against the Person Act 1861, s.23 & 24 - R v Gillard - Consent - Attorney-General's Reference (No 6 of 1980) - R v Aitken and Others -Rv Brown 10 Non-fatal offences against the person: sexual offences 262 Sexual Offences Act 1956 - Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 - Indecent assault -Rv Court - Rape - R v Olugboja -Rv R Contents vii 11 The elements of theft 278 Theft Act 1968, s.l - Property - Theft Act 1968, s.4 - R v Kohn - Appropriation - Theft Act 1968, s.3 - Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner — R v Gomez - Belonging to another - Theft Act 1968, s.5 - R v Turner (No 2) - R v Hall - Attorney-General's Reference (No 1 of 1985) - R v Meech - Attomey-General's Reference (No 1 of 1983) - Dishonestly - Theft Act 1968, s.l - R v Ghosh - Intention to permanently deprive - Theft Act 1968, s.6 - R v Lloyd 12 Vehicle taking 317 Theft Act 1968, s.l2 - Taking for his own or another's use - R v Bow - Without the consent of the owner - R v Phipps and McGill — Whittaker and Whittaker v Campbell 13 Deception offences 326 Obtaining property by deception - Theft Act 1968, s.l5 - Obtaining - R v Thompson — By deception - DPP v Ray - Commissioner ofthe Police for the Metropolis v Charles - R v Lambie - Obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception - Theft Act 1968, s.l6 - R v Callender - Obtaining Services by deception - Theft Act 1978, s.l - R v Widdowson - Evasion of liability by deception - Theft Act 1978, s.2 - R v Holt and Lee -Rv Firth - Making off without payment - Theft Act 1978, s.3 - R v Allen 14 Handling stolen goods 347 Theft Act 1968, s.22 - Identifying goods as stolen - Attomey-General's Reference (No 4 of 1979) - The modes of handling - R v Kanwar - R v Pitchley - By, or for the benefit of, another - R v Bloxham - Knowing or believing the goods to be stolen - R v Grainge 15 Robbery, blackmail and burglary 359 Robbery - Theft Act 1968, s.8 - R v Haie - Corcoran v Anderton - Blackmail - Theft Act 1968, s.21 & s.34(2) - R v Bevans - Unwarranted demand - R v Harvey - Menaces - R v Garwood - Burglary - Theft Act 1968, s.9 - Any building or part of a building - R v Walkington - As a trespasser - R v Collins -Rv Jones and Smith - Aggravated burglary - Theft Act 1968, s.10 - Theft Act 1968, s.l 1 16 Criminal Damage 374 Criminal Damage Act 1971, s.l - Property belonging to another - R v Smith - With intent to endanger life - R v Steer - Without lawful excuse - Criminal Damage Act 1971, s.5 - R v Hill; R v Hall-Jaggard v Dickinson.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 8 Criminal Conduct Offences
    Chapter 8 Criminal conduct offences Page Index 1-8-1 Introduction 1-8-2 Chapter structure 1-8-2 Transitional guidance 1-8-2 Criminal conduct - section 42 – Armed Forces Act 2006 1-8-5 Violence offences 1-8-6 Common assault and battery - section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988 1-8-6 Assault occasioning actual bodily harm - section 47 Offences against the Persons Act 1861 1-8-11 Possession in public place of offensive weapon - section 1 Prevention of Crime Act 1953 1-8-15 Possession in public place of point or blade - section 139 Criminal Justice Act 1988 1-8-17 Dishonesty offences 1-8-20 Theft - section 1 Theft Act 1968 1-8-20 Taking a motor vehicle or other conveyance without authority - section 12 Theft Act 1968 1-8-25 Making off without payment - section 3 Theft Act 1978 1-8-29 Abstraction of electricity - section 13 Theft Act 1968 1-8-31 Dishonestly obtaining electronic communications services – section 125 Communications Act 2003 1-8-32 Possession or supply of apparatus which may be used for obtaining an electronic communications service - section 126 Communications Act 2003 1-8-34 Fraud - section 1 Fraud Act 2006 1-8-37 Dishonestly obtaining services - section 11 Fraud Act 2006 1-8-41 Miscellaneous offences 1-8-44 Unlawful possession of a controlled drug - section 5 Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 1-8-44 Criminal damage - section 1 Criminal Damage Act 1971 1-8-47 Interference with vehicles - section 9 Criminal Attempts Act 1981 1-8-51 Road traffic offences 1-8-53 Careless and inconsiderate driving - section 3 Road Traffic Act 1988 1-8-53 Driving
    [Show full text]
  • Tainted by Torture Examining the Use of Torture Evidence a Report by Fair Trials and REDRESS May 2018
    Tainted by Torture Examining the Use of Torture Evidence A report by Fair Trials and REDRESS May 2018 1 Fair Trials is a global criminal justice watchdog with offices in London, Brussels and Washington, D.C., focused on improving the right to a fair trial in accordance with international standards. Fair Trials’ work is premised on the belief that fair Its work combines: (a) helping suspects to trials are one of the cornerstones of a just society: understand and exercise their rights; (b) building an they prevent lives from being ruined by miscarriages engaged and informed network of fair trial defenders of justice, and make societies safer by contributing to (including NGOs, lawyers and academics); and (c) transparent and reliable justice systems that maintain fighting the underlying causes of unfair trials through public trust. Although universally recognised in research, litigation, political advocacy and campaigns. principle, in practice the basic human right to a fair trial is being routinely abused. Contacts: Jago Russell Roseanne Burke Chief Executive Legal and Communications Assistant [email protected] [email protected] For press queries, please contact: Alex Mik Campaigns and Communications Manager [email protected] +44 (0)207 822 2370 For more information about Fair Trials: Web: www.fairtrials.net Twitter: @fairtrials 2 Tainted by Torture: Examining the Use of Torture Evidence | 2018 REDRESS is an international human rights organisation that represents victims of torture and related international crimes to obtain justice and reparation. REDRESS brings legal cases on behalf of individual Its work includes research and advocacy to identify victims of torture, and advocates for better laws to the changes in law, policy and practice that are provide effective reparations.
    [Show full text]
  • A Legal Response to Colin Holmes
    J Med Ethics: first published as 10.1136/jme.17.2.86 on 1 June 1991. Downloaded from Journal ofmedical ethics, 1991, 17, 86-88 Psychopathic disorder: a category mistake? A legal response to Colin Holmes Irene Mackay University ofManchester Author's abstract diminished responsibility upon which I propose to comment. Holmes is concerned with a conflict between law and The absence of any established medical or medicine about the problem ofpsychopathy, in particular psychiatric definition of 'moral insanity' or as it relates to homicide. 'psychopathy' is noteworthy in this article by Colin He looksfor a consistent set oflegal principles based on Holmes. It is not clear whether either can be referred to a variety ofmedical concepts and in doing so criticises the correctly as an illness or whether the two could be courtfor its commonsense approach, its disregardfor synonymous. Moral insanity is referred to as 'absence medical evidence andfor employing lay notions of of conscience', 'no capacity for true moral feelings', responsibility and illness. 'depravity', and 'absence of moral scruple'. This commentary explores how Holmes's notionsfit into Psychopathy appears to mean 'total lack ofcopyright. existing legal rules and explains how the court seeks the compunction or consequent moral emotion', 'absence assistance ofmedical evidence when looking at the evidence of conscience', 'inability to experience guilt' and 'lack as a whole to enable it to decide upon issues ofdefence, of respect for the moral claims of others'. which involve legal and not medical concepts. Holmes is concerned with the conflict between law There is a difficulty inherent in this paper, as it seeks to and medicine about what he refers to as the problem of psychopathy.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Law and Litigation CPD Update
    prepared for Criminal Law and Litigation CPD Update Andrew Clemes CPD Training 2008 edition in Law ILEX CPD reference code: L22/P22 CPD © 2008 Copyright ILEX Tutorial College Limited All materials included in this ITC publication are copyright protected. All rights reserved. Any unauthorised reproduction or transmission of any part of this publication, whether electronically or otherwise, will constitute an infringement of copyright. No part of this publication may be lent, resold or hired out for any purpose without the prior written permission of ILEX Tutorial College Ltd. WARNING: Any person carrying out an unauthorised act in relation to this copyright work may be liable to both criminal prosecution and a civil claim for damages. This publication is intended only for the purpose of private study. Its contents were believed to be correct at the time of publication or any date stated in any preface, whichever is the earlier. This publication does not constitute any form of legal advice to any person or organisation. ILEX Tutorial College Ltd will not be liable for any loss or damage of any description caused by the reliance of any person on any part of the contents of this publication. Published in 2008 by: ILEX Tutorial College Ltd College House Manor Drive Kempston Bedford United Kingdom MK42 7AB Preface This update has been prepared by ILEX Tutorial College (ITC) to assist Fellows and Members of the Institute of Legal Executives (ILEX) in meeting their continuing professional development (CPD) or lifelong learning requirements for 2008. Fellows are required to complete 16 hours of CPD in 2008 and Members eight hours of CPD.
    [Show full text]
  • A Timely History of Cheating and Fraud Following Ivey V Genting Casinos (UK)
    The honest cheat: a timely history of cheating and fraud following Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67 Cerian Griffiths Lecturer in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Lancaster University Law School1 Author email: [email protected] Abstract: The UK Supreme Court took the opportunity in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67 to reverse the long-standing, but unpopular, test for dishonesty in R v Ghosh. It reduced the relevance of subjectivity in the test of dishonesty, and brought the civil and the criminal law approaches to dishonesty into line by adopting the test as laid down in Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan. This article employs extensive legal historical research to demonstrate that the Supreme Court in Ivey was too quick to dismiss the significance of the historical roots of dishonesty. Through an innovative and comprehensive historical framework of fraud, this article demonstrates that dishonesty has long been a central pillar of the actus reus of deceptive offences. The recognition of such significance permits us to situate the role of dishonesty in contemporary criminal property offences. This historical analysis further demonstrates that the Justices erroneously overlooked centuries of jurisprudence in their haste to unite civil and criminal law tests for dishonesty. 1 I would like to thank Lindsay Farmer, Dave Campbell, and Dave Ellis for giving very helpful feedback on earlier drafts of this article. I would also like to thank Angus MacCulloch, Phil Lawton, and the Lancaster Law School Peer Review College for their guidance in developing this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • The Origins of the Homicide Act 1957
    Journal ofmedical ethics, 1986, 12, 8-12 J Med Ethics: first published as 10.1136/jme.12.1.8 on 1 March 1986. Downloaded from Forensic psychiatry symposium The origins of the Homicide Act 1957 J Higgins Regional Forensic Psychiatry Service, Liverpool Editor's note were certain serious wrongs, amongst them murder, which were 'botless', that is they could not be expiated Thispaper traces the history ofthe concepts ofinsanity and by compensation but had to be punished by death and diminished responsibility in English law. Insanity as a forfeiture ofproperty. Nevertheless for both groups of defence in Law has two components, and these two offences, botless and non-botless, there was no components developed quite separately. The idea that an assessment of culpability or responsibility - a sort of insane person may not know what he or she is doing when strict liability operated. It appears that the mentally he or she commits an offence, and isfor this reason not abnormal offender's family would have to pay guilty, goes back to the thirteenth century. The other compensation for any act done by him, including component, which developed in the seventeenth century, homicide, and thereafter take care of him - 'an insane was known as the 'right-wrong test'. According to this a person should be guarded and treated leniently by his person who commits an offence may be not guilty on the parents'. copyright. grounds that he does not know that what he is doing is wrong. The conceptofdiminished responsibility originated in the middle ofthe nineteenth century and was developed The twelfth to the eighteenth centuries in Scottish law.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of R. V. Stone with R. V. Parks: Two Cases of Automatism
    ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY A Comparison of R. v. Stone with R. v. Parks: Two Cases of Automatism Graham D. Glancy, MB, ChB, John M. Bradford, MB, ChB, and Larissa Fedak, BPE, MSc, LLB J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 30:541–7, 2002 Both the medical and legal professions recognize that The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Dis- some criminal actions take place in the absence of orders, fourth edition (DMS-IV),3 does not define consciousness and intent, thereby inferring that these automatism, although it does include several diag- actions are less culpable. However, experts enter a noses, such as delirium or parasomnias, that could be legal quagmire when medical expert evidence at- the basis for automatism. tempts to find some common meaning for the terms The seminal legal definition is that of Lord Den- “automatism” and “unconsciousness.” ning in Bratty v. A-G for Northern Ireland: 1 The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines autom- . .an act which is done by the muscles without any control by atism as “Involuntary action. (Psych) action per- the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action, or a convulsion; or an formed unconsciously or subconsciously.” This act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing, seems precise and simple until we attempt to de- such as an act done while suffering from concussion or while 4 fine unconscious or subconscious. Fenwick2 notes sleepwalking. that consciousness is layered and that these layers This was developed by Canadian courts in R. v. Ra- largely depend on subjective behavior that is ill de- bey: fined.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Homicide Act for England and Wales?
    The Law Commission Consultation Paper No 177 (Overview) A NEW HOMICIDE ACT FOR ENGLAND AND WALES? An Overview The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Toulson, Chairman Professor Hugh Beale QC, FBA Mr Stuart Bridge Dr Jeremy Horder Professor Martin Partington CBE The Chief Executive of the Law Commission is Steve Humphreys and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WC1N 2BQ. This overview, completed on 28 November 2005, is circulated for comment and criticism only. It does not represent the final views of the Law Commission. For those who are interested in a fuller discussion of the law and the Law Commission's proposals, our formal consultation paper is accessible from http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/murder.htm, or you can order a hard copy from TSO (www.tso.co.uk). The Law Commission would be grateful for comments on its proposals before 13 April 2006. Comments may be sent either – By post to: David Hughes Law Commission Conquest House 37-38 John Street Theobalds Road London WC1N 2BQ Tel: 020-7453-1212 Fax: 020-7453-1297 By email to: [email protected] It would be helpful if, where possible, comments sent by post could also be sent on disk, or by email to the above address, in any commonly used format. All responses will be treated as public documents in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and may be made available to third parties.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Profile
    Maryam Mir Call: 2011 Email: [email protected] Profile Maryam is a popular choice amongst lay and professional clients for her detailed preparation, fearless advocacy in court and personable nature. She is a compassionate listener who fights for her clients with determination and gets great results. Maryam has experience in a wide range of criminal offences. As a led junior, Maryam is instructed in cases involving homicide, firearms, terrorism and large scale fraud. As leading counsel, she has defended in cases of serious violence, conspiracy to supply firearms, politically motivated offending from terrorism to protest, financial crime, fraud and regulatory matters, sexual offences, drugs supply conspiracies and kidnapping. She worked on several high-profile terrorism cases during her secondment with Reprieve, representing leaders of political parties sanctioned as terrorists by the UN, US and UK. She was part of a team that brought the first due process challenge in the US against the inclusion of a US citizen on a “Kill List”, whilst reporting on the conflict in Syria. She has experience in cases involving legal challenges to the use of state extra-judicial killing by drones and/or mercenaries. She assists individuals challenging their listing by the UN Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee. Maryam is experienced in advising on appeals against conviction and sentence before the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal. Maryam is determined to encourage other ethnic minority women to enter and stay in the profession. She
    [Show full text]
  • Court of Appeal Confirms Ivey Test for Dishonesty Is Correct and Clarifies the English Court’S Approach to Rules of Precedent
    Court of Appeal confirms Ivey test for Dishonesty is correct and clarifies the English Court’s approach to rules of precedent Published 27 May 2020 An important decision for the determination of offences involving dishonesty and of note for international parties involved in litigation in England. Introduction On 29 April 2020, the Court of Appeal heard what can fairly be regarded as an optimistic appeal made by David Barton and Rosemary Booth against their convictions for multiple counts of conspiracy to defraud, fraud, theft and false accounting. The allegations relate to the extraction of millions of pounds from wealthy individuals by the owners and operators of a luxury care home facility over a number of years. In the Liverpool Crown Court, Mr Barton was convicted 10 counts and sentenced to 21 years imprisonment and Mrs Booth convicted on 3 counts and sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment. The Appeal Of the multiple grounds of appeal raised, the primary ground related to the law of dishonesty and whether the decision in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) (trading as Cockfords Club) [2017] UKSC 67 was the correct approach to dishonesty and if so, was it to be followed in preference to the test described in R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053. At first instance, the Judge had directed the jury on the issue of dishonesty by reference to Ivey rather than Ghosh. In doing so, he did what the Supreme Court in Ivey indicated he should. The Appellants argued that the Judge should have followed Ghosh because the observations of the Supreme Court in Ivey were made Obiter whilst Ghosh remained binding authority.
    [Show full text]
  • Concealment of Birth: Time to Repeal a 200-Year-Old “Convenient Stop-Gap”?
    University of Plymouth PEARL https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk Faculty of Arts and Humanities School of Society and Culture 2019-07 Concealment of Birth: Time to Repeal a 200-Year-Old "Convenient Stop-Gap"? Milne, E http://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/15651 10.1007/s10691-019-09401-6 Feminist Legal Studies Springer Science and Business Media LLC All content in PEARL is protected by copyright law. Author manuscripts are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author. Concealment of birth: time to repeal a 200-year-old “convenient stop-gap”? Introduction The criminal offence of concealment of birth (concealment) prohibits the secret disposal of the dead body of a child in order to conceal knowledge of that child’s birth under English and Welsh criminal law.1 Most prosecutions are of women who have concealed or denied their pregnancy, then given birth alone, with the child dying around the time of birth, and the woman disposing of the body without informing another person of the existence of the child. The offence is closely connected to newborn infant homicide and defendants are often suspected of being responsible for the child’s death. While the offence can be committed by anyone, the defendant is most often the birth mother.2 The offence is rarely prosecuted with only four convictions between 2010 and 2014 (Milne 2017), and since 2002 only one person has received an immediate custodial sentence.3 However, despite the small number of convictions and nature of the sentence, the offence is significant, particularly when analysed from a feminist perspective.
    [Show full text]
  • Fakers and Forgers, Deception and Dishonesty: an Exploration of the Murky World of Art Fraud†
    Fakers and Forgers, Deception and Dishonesty: An Exploration of the Murky World of Art Fraud† Duncan Chappell and Kenneth Polk Abstract This article examines the problem of fraud in the contemporary art market. It addresses two major cases where persons have been convicted of art fraud in recent years in Australia, examining the legal context within which the prosecutions took place. It then examines problems in common terms such as ‘forgery’ and ‘fakery’. The final sections review the different ways that issues of authenticity in art are addressed in possible cases of art fraud, and examines the question of why so little art fraud comes to the attention of the criminal justice system. Introduction Art fraud, especially allegations of the circulation of spurious works of art, seems a common topic for contemporary mass media. Certainly, the present writers, as criminologists, have encountered numerous allegations of false works in the art market in our many interviews and contacts with leading figures in the Australian context over the past decade. At the same time, as we shall see, almost no cases of art fraud work their way through the court system, either in this country or overseas. This suggests that there may be significant barriers within the criminal justice system that make it difficult to prosecute successfully this form of fraud. The purpose of the present discussion is to examine the crime of art fraud in terms of the major elements that have to be established for a prosecution of the crime, based in large part upon two recent Australian prosecutions of this type which have been successful, and then go on to examine some of the reasons why such prosecutions are so rare.
    [Show full text]