Bernard Greenhuff (1838) 2 Swin 236
Citation:Bernard Greenhuff (1838) 2 Swin 236
Rule of thumb: What happens if a person is doing an act which is of a criminal nature but there is no in-point criminal law statute or criminal law case affirming that it is a crime? If it is of an obvious criminal nature then existing criminal statutes & criminal case-law can be extended to cover it – it is for the Court to decide the point of law over whether it is of an obvious criminal nature.
Judgment: The basic facts of this case were that Greenhuff was running a casino in his house and was prosecuted for this. Greenhuff made the argument that this was not prevented by any statute and no one had ever been convicted for it meaning this was therefore not a crime. Greenhuff was convicted on the grounds of this ‘corrupting public morals’ and ‘injuring the interests of society’. Baron Hume, the institutional writer of criminal works, was also quoted where it said that if conduct was of an ‘obvious criminal nature’, then someone could be prosecuted.
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.