HARTLEY (app.) v. ELLNOR (resp.). 1917. personFrequenting street or with intent to commit a felony- Arrest London and to the limits of the weekly bills of mortality. That statute provided that constables might arrest any suspected person or reputed thief if it appeared from the oath of one or more credible witnesses that such person was of evil fame and a reputed thief, and if such person should not be able to give a satisfactory account of himself or of his way of living, and if it should also appear that there was good ground for believing Vagrancy. that he was in the street with the intention of committing a Suspected felony. Then in such a case he might be arrested and brought up as a rogue and vagabond. The present proceedings, however, were taken under the Vagrancy Act, 1824, and this statute public place does not require proof that the person who is charged as a suspected person is a person of ill fame and a reputed thief unless, as counsel for the respondent has contended, the mere use of the words "suspected person or reputed thief" implies Rogue and that before he can be convicted of the offence there must be evidence that, prior to the day in question, he had the reputation of being a thief, or had been suspected before that day, when reputed thief" he could be properly described as a suspected person. By Previous whom must be have been suspected before the day in question? convictionWould the suspicion of one individual before the day in question Bad characte be sufficient to show that he was a suspected person? We have not been enlightened upon these points; but we are clearly of opinion that in the present case there was ample evidence before the justices to show that the respondent was in fact a suspected person, and also that there was ample evidence to render it 1871 (34 & 35 possible for the inference to be properly drawn that the respon- Viet. c. 112), dent was frequenting Martineau-street on the day in question with the intention of committing a felony. We are of opinion that the justices did not fully and properly consider the evidence adduced before them, and the case must be remitted to them for their consideration and for their determination whether the offence charged is made out. Appeal allowed. Case remitted. Solicitors for the appellant, Capron and Co., for J. Ernest Hill, Birmingham. Solicitors for the respondent, H. Tyrrell and Son, for A. J. Hatwell, Birmingham. vagabondSuspected person or -Evidence Vagrancy Act, 1824 (5 Geo. 4, c. 83), s. 4— Prevention of Crimes Act, 8. 15. KING'S BENCH DIVISION. Monday, June 25, 1917. (Before Lord READING, C.J., DARLING and AVORY, JJ.) AGDESHMAN (app.) v. HUNT (resp.). (a) Alien Registration Particulars to be supplied-False particulars British subject - Mistake in registration cardOffence-" Any person"-Aliens Restriction Act, 1914 (4 & 5 Geo. 5, c. 12), s. 1—Aliens Restriction (Consolidation) Order, 1916, reg. 27 (2). By reg. 27 (2) of the Aliens Restriction (Consolidation) Order, 1916, it is provided that if any person furnishes any false particulars in connection with the same he shall be deemed to have acted in contravention of the order. A. was the son of Russian parents, and was himself born in Russia. A's father came to England, and in 1913, whilst the son was still an infant, being only fourteen years of age, the father was naturalised under the Naturalisation Act, 1870. The name of A. appeared in the certificate of naturalisation, and, therefore, by virtue of the Act of 1870, A. was a person deemed to be of British nationality. In 1915, in pursuance of the National Registration Act, 1915, A. filled up a form in which he described himself as "Russian, naturalised British," but, owing to some mistake, the registration card which was subsequently issued to him described him simply as a Russian. In 1917, after he had attained the age of eighteen years, A. applied to be registered under the Aliens Restriction Act, 1914, and the regulations of the Aliens Restriction (Consolidation) Order, 1916, as a Russian. An information was then preferred against him for furnishing false particulars under the order of 1916 as to his nationality, and the magistrate before whom the information was heard convicted A., holding that he knew that he was a person of British nationality, and that the offence charged against him could be committed by a British subject. (a) Reported by J. A. SLATER, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Held, that the wording of reg. 27 (2), under which the information AGDESHMAN was laid, was wide enough to include a British subject, and (app.) that the magistrate was right in convicting A. of the offence HUNT (resp.). charged against him. CASE stated by a metropolitan magistrate. v. 1917. Alien-Regis tration subjectMistake in On the 20th day of April, 1917, the appellant, David Agdesh- Particulars to man, was charged at the Thames Police Court on an information be suppliedFalse particuby the respondent, Alfred Hunt, an inspector of police, for that lars-British he, the appellant, did, on the 26th day of March, 1917, at No. 21A, Commercial-street, Whitechapel, unlawfully furnish to the respondent, whilst the latter was acting in his capacity as a card-Offence registration officer under the Aliens Restriction (Consolidation) Order, 1916, false particulars with respect to the appellant's nationality. registration -"Any person" Aliens Restriction Act, 1914 (4 & 5 Geo. 5, c. 12), s. 1Aliens On the hearing of the information the following facts were proved or admitted: 1. The appellant was born at Bessarabia, Russia, on the Restriction 24th day of March, 1899. (Consolida 1916, reg. 27 (2). 2. The father of the appellant, Philip Agdeshman, on the tion) Order, 4th day of April, 1913, applied for and obtained a certificate of naturalisation as a British subject, and the appellant was the person referred to in the certificate as "David, aged fourteen years." 3. In August, 1915, the appellant, on a form signed by him in pursuance of the National Registration Act, 1915, described himself as "Russian, naturalised British." 4. A registration card was issued to the appellant in pursuance of the National Registration Act, 1915, and by mistake he was described on the card as "Russian." 5. On the 26th day of March, 1917, the appellant applied to the respondent to be registered under the Aliens Restriction. Act, 1914, and reg. 19 of the Aliens Restriction (Consolidation) Order, 1916. 6. On this application the appellant, among other statements of a personal character, made a statement that he was of Russian nationality, whereas, in view of the facts set out in par. 2 hereof and by virtue of sect. 10, sub-sect. 5, of the Naturalisation Act, 1870, he was in truth a person who is deemed to be a naturalised British subject. 7. On the 1st day of April, 1917, the respondent, having seen the naturalisation certificate, asked the appellant why he, knowing that he was a British subject, tried to register himself as a Russian. The appellant then produced his National Registration card. The respondent informed the appellant that he had seen his (the appellant's) original registration form, on which he described himself as "Russian, naturalised British." The appellant stated that because he was nearly eighteen he had gone to a solicitor in order to obtain exemption from (app.) v. HUNT (resp.). 1917. Alien-Regis AGDEBHMAN military service and had shown his National Registration card, and that the solicitor told him that the authorities thought that he was a Russian, and he should go and register with the police and this would be enough. The appellant further stated that when he reached the age of twenty-one he could be what he liked, and until then he was going to be a Russian. tration- On behalf of the appellant it was contended (a) that a Particulars to misstatement as to nationality was not a "false particular be supplied within the Aliens Restriction (Consolidation) Order, 1916, reg. lars-British 27 (2), and that nationality, being partly a question of law, was subject- not a matter as to which a "false particular" could be furnished; Mistake in and (b) that reg. 27 (2) did not make it an offence for a person card-Offence Who was not an alien to furnish false particulars to a registration officer, and if it purported to do so it was to that extent ultra False particu registration "Any person Aliens Restric tion Act, 1914 c. 12), s. 1 Aliens Restriction (Consolida tion) Order, req. 27 (2). 1916, vires. The learned magistrate before whom the information was (4 & 5 Geo. 5, heard was of opinion that, nationality being one of the matters. referred to in reg. 19 (1) (a) of the order and set out in the fourth schedule to the order in a list headed "Particulars to be furnished on Registration," a false statement as to nationality was a false particular within reg. 27 (2). He was further of opinion that the statement of a false particular to a registration officer by a person who was not an alien came within reg. 27 (2), and that sect. 1, sub-sect. 1 (k), of the Aliens Restriction Act, 1914, empowered the making of such a regulation applying to persons who were not aliens, inasmuch as it was necessary and expedient, with a view to the safety of the realm, that if a register of aliens was to be kept it should be accurate. The learned magistrate found as facts that at the time when the appellant furnished the false particulars to the respondent he knew that he was a British subject, and that the appellant only adopted the mistake made on his National Registration card and tried to register as a Russian in order to obtain exemption from military service. The learned magistrate therefore convicted the appellant and sentenced him to three months' imprisonment in the second division. Sect. 10, sub-sect. 5, of the Naturalisation Act, 1870 (33 Vict., c. 14)-now repealed by the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914 (4 & 5 Geo. 5, c. 17)-is as follows: Where the father or the mother, being a widow, has obtained a certificate of naturalisation in the United Kingdom, every child of such father or mother who during infancy has become resident with such father or mother in any part of the United Kingdom shall be deemed to be a naturalised British subject. Sect. 1 of the Aliens Restriction Act, 1914 (4 & 5 Geo. 5, c. 12), provides: (1) His Majesty may at any time when a state of war exists between His Majesty and any foreign Power, or when it appears that an occasion of imminent national danger or emergency has arisen, by Order in Council impose restrictions on aliens, and provision may be made by he order. (k) for any other matters which appear necessary or expedient with a view to the safety of the realm By the Aliens Restriction (Consolidation) Order, 1916, it is AGDESHMAN provided (inter alia): (app.) บ. Reg. 19 (1). An alien, wherever resident, shall comply with the following require- HUNT (resp.). ments as to registration: (a) he shall as soon as may be furnish to the registration officer of the registration district in which he is resident particulars as to the 1917. matt-rs set out in the first part of the fourth schedule to this order. paticulars icelade nationality and birthplace.] [The Alien-Regis. Reg. 27 (2). If any person furnishes or causes to be furnished to a registration trationofficer any false particular-, or, with a view to obtaining any permit or permission Particulare to under this order, makes or cause to be made any false statement or false represen- be supplied— tation, he shall be deemed to bave acted in contravention of this order. False particu Reg 28. If any person aids or abets any person in any contravention of this lars-British order, or kno vingly harbours any person whom he knows or has reasonable ground for supposing to have acted in contravention of this order, he shall be deemed himself to have a ted in contravention of this order. subjectMistake in registration card-Offence person Aliens Restric Aliens Restriction Cox-Sinclair and Hynes for the appellant.-The learned -"Any magistrate was wrong in convicting the appellant. He was admittedly a British subject under the Naturalisation Act, 1870, tion Act, 1914 and as such did not come within the purview of the Aliens (44 5 Geo. 5, Restriction (Consolidation) Order, 1916. That order, as well as c. 12), s. 1the Aliens Restriction Act, 1914, under which the regulations were made, had reference to aliens alone, and the words " any (Consolidaperson" were only applicable in the case of an alien. The tion) Order, attempt to extend the meaning of the words "any person British subject was going too far. As the Act of 1914 was not intended to apply to persons other than aliens, the regulation under which the appellant was convicted was ultra vires. Lamb, for the respondent, was not called upon to argue. " to a Lord READING, C.J.-In my opinion the learned magistrate came to a correct determination in this case. According to the case stated, he arrived at his decision on two grounds-namely, that the appellant furnished false particulars when applying for registration under the Aliens Restriction (Consolidation) Order, 1916, and that he knowingly gave these false particulars in order to obtain exemption from military service. It is not necessary to deal with the question of the false particulars at any length. It could not be seriously argued by anyone that there was no misstatement of the particulars required under the regulation. The question of nationality may not always be one which can be easily determined. But in this case there was no doubt at all. The appellant knew what his nationality was. He was born in Russia, and he became a naturalised British subject when his father took out his certificate of naturalisation in 1918. The learned magistrate has found that he wilfully gave false particulars, and that he did so with the purpose of evading military service. There was abundant evidence upon which the learned magistrate could arrive at that decision, and indeed I do not see how it can be questioned in any way. But another point has been raised, a point of law, and it is based upon the construction of the language of reg. 27 (2) of the Aliens Restriction (Consolidation) Order, 1916, which was 1916. reg. 27 (2). |