|
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. ==Background== A common informer was a person who provided evidence on criminal trials or prosecuted for breaches of Irish penal laws solely for the purpose of being rewarded with the penalty recovered, or a share of it.〔() (1911) "(Informer )", ''Encyclopaedia Britannica''〕 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.〔Edwards (1951) ''p.'' 462〕 An action by a common informer was termed a "popular" or ''qui tam'' action. 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.〔 The informer had to prove his case strictly and was given no assistance by the court being denied discovery.〔''Orpen v. Haymarket Capital Ltd & Others'', ''The Times'', July 18, 1931, ''p.''3, col E〕 Following the Revolution of 1688 in England, the Popery Act 1698 introduced a reward of £100 for the apprehension of any Roman Catholic priest. 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.〔Burton, E. ''et al.'' (1913) "Penal laws, ''Catholic Encyclopedia''〕 Jonathan Swift described common informers as "a detestable race of people" while Edward Coke called them "viperous vermin".〔 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.〔 Later in the year, Orpen brought a claim against another chain, but was thwarted by a change in the law legalising Sunday opening for cinemas before her case could be decided.〔''Orpen v. New Empire Ltd and Others'', ''The Times'', October 20, 1931, ''p''.4, col C〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Common Informers Act 1951」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|