The defendant appealed against the refusal of the Justices to deal with his formal committal to the Crown court in his absence when he was unwell. The magistrates had distinguished between sections 6(1) and 6(2) as to whether the accused was required to be present. Held: The distinction was false: ‘when the Act deals in … Continue reading Regina v Liverpool City Magistrates Court ex parte Quantrell: Admn 19 Jan 1999
Statements in support of a committal under 6(1) or 6(2) are to be admissible also under section 102. Citations: Times 22-Mar-1996 Statutes: Magistrates Courts Act 1980 Criminal Evidence, Magistrates Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86888
The Claimant aged 14 appeared before the Magistrates’ Court with a 20 year old Co-Defendant. The Magistrates declined jurisdiction in his case and the Claimant indicated Not Guilty pleas. The Magistrates concluded that it was in the interest of . .
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant? Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: ‘The overriding concern is that a trial should be fair, and the presumption … Continue reading Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002: HL 14 Oct 2004
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made. Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards of evidence therefore applied, and hearsay evidence was admissible. Nevertheless, the test as to whether it was … Continue reading Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others: HL 17 Oct 2002
