A bribe accepted by a member of a licensing court, and the question was whether such a court was a ‘public body’ within the meaning of section 7 as extended by section 4(2) of the 1916 Act.
Held: The court were doubtful whether a licensing court fell within the definition of ‘public body’ in the 1889 Act, but agreed that it fell within the extended definition in the 1916 Act which applied to ‘local and public authorities of all descriptions’. The functions of the court were ‘mainly of an administrative character’ and that it had ‘complete discretionary power’ with regard to the number of licences to be granted and the persons to whom they should be granted.
Judges:
Lord Justice-General (Normand), Lord Moncrieff and Lord Carmont
Citations:
1941 JC 86
Statutes:
Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 7, Prevention of Corruption Act 1916 4(2)
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Cited by:
Cited – In re McFarland HL 29-Apr-2004
The claimant was convicted, imprisoned, and then his conviction was overturned. He sought compensation. He had pleaded guilty after being told by counsel to expect an adverse direction from the magistrate, following a meeting in private between . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Magistrates
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.196538