The National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946 / with general introduction and annotations by N.P. Shannon and Douglas Potter.

  • United Kingdom
Date:
1946
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946 / with general introduction and annotations by N.P. Shannon and Douglas Potter. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    172/252 (page 162)
    NO. 35.—NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES) (7) Servants and agents.—A principal has the right to direct what work his agent shall do; but a master has the further right to direct his servant how the work is to be done. See, for example, R. v. Walker (1858), 27 L.J. (M.C.) 207, C.C.R., per BRAMWELL, B., at p. 208; 34 Digest 28, 64. (m) Information and documents.—“ Information ” is a general term, including - oral information as to his own knowledge, hearsay evidence, and documents. ‘‘ Docu- ments ”’ means any permanent record, written, printed or otherwise expressed in a permanent medium. Cf. the law of libel, 20 Halsbury’s Laws (2nd Edn.) 383 et seq. In the Evidence Act, 1938, section 6; 31 Halsbury’s Statutes 147; ‘' Document ”’ includes books, maps,: plans, drawings and photographs. Note that this definition is not exhaustive. (n) May reasonably require.—See note (g), supra. (0) Contributions.—As to the payment of these, see sections 2- a ante. (p) Benefit.—This, by section 88 (1), fost, means benefit under this Act, that is, under sections 7 and 11-35, ante. (q) Wilfully delays or obstructs an inspector.—The expression “ wilful - obstruction ’’ is used in section 32 (2) (b), ante. As to its meaning, see note (p) to that section. ‘“‘ Resisting or wilfully obstructing ’’ any constable or peace officer when in the execution of his duty occurs in section 2 of the Prevention of Crimes Amendment Act, 1885 ; 4 Halsbury’s Statutes 714. The obstruction under that section has been held not to be confined to physical obstruction. Warning cars which are being driven at an illegal speed of a police trap was obstruction (Betts v. Stevens, [1910] 1 K.B. 1; 15 Digest, 710, 7678. So warning witnesses of an accident of an inspector’s approach so that they could escape might be obstruction under the present section. Persuading or forcing a witness to hide from the inspector would clearly be obstruction. A crowd refusing to disperse at a constable’s request has been held to be obstructing under the Act of 1885 (Despard v. Wilcox (1910), 102 L.T. 103; 15 Digest 710, 7680). “ Delays * would in most cases be proved by the same evidence as “ obstructs”’. It is, of course, a good defence to prove that the delay or obstruction is not wilful. Similar provisions to this one appear in a number of Acts besides those mentioned in the General note, supra. (r) Refuses or neglects to answer questions, etc.—In this paragraph the word used was originally “ fails’. The element of wilfulness was therefore not necessary to constitute an offence. Mere proof of the failure of any person to do what was re- quired would have made him guilty. If he showed that his failure was unintentional this would have been a thing for the Bench to take into account when assessing the fine. Often, no doubt, in such a case the summons would have been dismissed on payment of costs. In the House of Lords, however, this was pointed out, and on the Report Stage the word was amended to “ refuses or neglects ’’, importing the element of wilfulness or negligence into the failure. See also note (q), supra. As to the duty to answer questions, etc., see subsections (2) and (3). (s) Deleted provision as to concealment.—A paragraph was deleted, in Committee in the House of Lords, which made it an offence to conceal or attempt to conceal any person or prevent him from appearing before or being examined by an inspector, This would, of course, have been an offence in which the element of wilfulness was essential. (‘) Fine on summary conviction.—A summary conviction is a conviction by a court having summary jurisdiction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts. As to such courts and their procedure and powers, see, generally, 21 Halsbury’s Laws (2nd Edn.) 511 e¢ seg. The amount of the fine is of course a matter for the Bench in each case. Often a summons is dismissed on payment of costs, no conviction being recorded against the defendant. By section 49 (5) of the National Insurance Act, 1946, an offence under this section is not to be deemed to be a first offence if there has been a previous conviction under that section. As to “‘ deemed ’’, see note (s) to section 7, ante. (uw) Evidence tending to incriminate himself.—This proviso repeats the general rule of the law of evidence, but with the difference that here the protection does not extend to the wife or husband of the person. It only protects the person himself. As to the general law, see 13 Halsbury’s Laws (2nd Edn.) 729-733. As to 68, post. Note that this proviso applies not only to giving evidence in any court in any proceedings, civil or criminal, but also to questions asked anywhere and at any time. Under the general law, however, a person charged and being a witness in pursuance of the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898, which made accused persons competent witnesses in their own defence, may be asked any question in cross-examination notwithstanding that it would tend to criminate him as to the offence charged (section 1 (e) of that Act ; 8 Halsbury’s Statutes 249). But he shall not be asked, and if asked shall not be re- quired to answer, any question tending to show that he has committed or been convicted is of bad character unless—(i) the proof that he has committed or been convicted of such other offence is admissible evidence to show that he is guilty of the offence where- ; a ae STs Cd Sa