Act of Parliament | |
Long title | An Act to abolish the common informer procedure. |
---|---|
Citation | 14 & 15 Geo. 6. c. 39 |
Introduced by | Sir Lionel Heald, Private Member's Bill [1] (Commons) |
Territorial extent |
|
Dates | |
Royal assent | 22 June 1951 |
Commencement | 1 September 1951 [2] |
Other legislation | |
Amends | Bank of England Act 1694 |
Status: Partially repealed | |
Text of statute as originally enacted | |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.
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]
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 [update] 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]
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]
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.
The False Claims Act of 1863 (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 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.
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. As some laws are unwritten and laws can be interpreted broadly, it does not necessarily mean that an action will not be punished simply because a specific rule against it is not codified.
In criminal law, property is obtained by false pretenses when the acquisition results from the intentional misrepresentation of a past or existing fact.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The age of consent varies by jurisdiction across Europe. The ages of consent – hereby meaning the age from which one is deemed able to consent to having sex with anyone else of consenting age or above – are between 14 and 18. The vast majority of countries set their ages in the range of 14 to 16; only four countries, Cyprus (17), Ireland (17), Turkey (18), and the Vatican City (18), set an age of consent higher than 16.
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.
The Incitement to Mutiny Act 1797 was an Act passed by the Parliament of Great Britain. The Act was passed in the aftermath of the Spithead and Nore mutinies and aimed to prevent the seduction of sailors and soldiers to commit mutiny.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.