Category: Magistrates

Regina v Newcastle Upon Tyne Magistrates’ Court ex parte Still, Lawlan, Davidson, Pryor, and Forrest: Admn 18 Sep 1996

A man was accused of a series of mortgage frauds. The defendants each gave evidence to the court. He made a complaint of perjury against each of them. The current defendants sought judicial review of a refusal to discharge the summonses.
Held: ‘there is no authority directly upon the question whether the issue and maintenance of summonses charging perjury pending the trial of a criminal prosecution in which those receiving the summonses may be called to give evidence may constitute an abuse of the process of the court.’ ‘few things could be more calculated to distort the process of Mr. Hedworth’s trial than what has occurred here. ‘ and ‘These witnesses will go to the Crown Court with the threat of the summonses over their heads. There is a plain danger of pressure, at least subjectively felt, such that evidence at the trial may not be given freely. There is a risk that the jury may be misled by attaching false importance to the outstanding perjury proceedings. The evidence would be distorted. It would appear that the witnesses would have to be advised of their privilege against self-incrimination. What might the jury make of that? The magistrates themselves appreciated that it would be wholly inappropriate for such perjury proceedings as these to go forward while the prosecution of Mr. Hedworth was outstanding. That was plainly right. ‘

Judges:

Laws J

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 75

Statutes:

Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Bros 1902
A magistrate should consider, before issuing a summons, whether it appears to be vexatious. . .
Cited – Regina v West London Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Klahn QBD 1979
The issue of a summons by a magistrate is a judicial act: ‘The duty of a magistrate in considering an application for the issue of a summons is to exercise a judicial discretion in deciding whether or not to issue a summons. It would appear that he . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.136623

Morsby v Tower Bridge Magistrates’ Court: Admn 31 Oct 2007

The claimant sought judicial review of the magistrates refusal to set aside a conviction entered in his absence. He had been in custody and not produced for the hearing.
Held: The review was granted. The judge had not established that the defendant was at fault in not attending.

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2766 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 142(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v John Victor Hayward, Anthony William Jones, Paul Nigel Purvis CACD 31-Jan-2001
A defendant can forego his right to attend his trial, but he still had the general right to be present, and to have legal representation at the trial. The court’s discretion to proceed in his absence should only be exercised with great care. A trial . .
Cited – Regina v Jones (Anthony William) HL 20-Feb-2002
The defendant absconded, and did not appear for his trial despite several listings. The trial proceeded in his absence entirely. After arrest, he appealed, saying that he had not had a fair trial.
Held: It was not suggested that he did not . .
Cited – Regina v Jones, Planter and Pengelly 1991
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.261644

Rockall v Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: Admn 22 Mar 2007

The defendant appealed against his conviction under the Act, saying that the proceedings had been issued late. The issue was the calculation of the date when proceedings were begun.
Held: There was no justification for reading the wording of the two Acts differently despite the extended time limit allowed by the 1967 Act. The time limit expired over a weekend, but the complaint was received by fax. An information was laid by fax at the point where it could have been read: ‘the essential concept running through all these authorities is that the information should be made available to the justices, or the clerk to the justice, within time. This will be so in relation to postal delivery when it can properly be inferred that it has been received, whether opened or not; and as far as transmissions by fax or other electronic means are concerned, that will be when it can properly be inferred that the information is retrievable, whether retrieved in fact or not. ‘ On that basis the appeal was denied.

Judges:

Latham LJ, Davis J

Citations:

Times 11-May-2007, [2007] EWHC 614 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Forestry Act 1967 17(1), Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 127(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rex v Willace 1797
The commencement of a prosecution was held to be ‘the information and proceeding before the magistrate’. . .
Cited – Price v Humphries 1958
The court was asked whether or not the prosecution had proved that the relevant proceedings had been ‘instituted’ by or with the consent of the minister or other authorised agent as required by section 53(1) of the National Insurance Act 1946.
Cited – Regina v Manchester Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Hill and others HL 1993
The complaint had been laid before Magistrates before the expiration of the time limit, but was only considered and the summons issued after the time limit. The House also considered the power of delegation where a justice of the peace or the clerk . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Cottier QBD 22-Feb-1996
Proceedings against a youth begin at court; notice need not be given to the youth panel before the charge itself is made at police station. When considering whether proceedings have been ‘begun’ in any court for the section Saville LJ, said: ‘We . .
Mentioned – Lloyd v Young Admn 1963
There had been doubt on the face of the summons as to the date of the laying of the information.
Held: The court concluded on the evidence that the Justices were entitled to dismiss the information because of the doubts of the date. . .
Cited – Regina v Pontypridd Juvenile Court ex parte B and others Admn 1988
The court was asked about compliance with the time limits in the 1980 Act. There was a computer link between the police station and the magistrates’ court. The practice for laying an information was for the police to feed the information into the . .
Cited – Atkinson v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 12-May-2004
The court considered how to apply the time limits in the section. There was a system for automatic electronic communication between the police and the court office. The six month time limit expired on the 16th December. The documents served on the . .

Cited by:

See Also – Rockall v Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 9-May-2008
The defendant appealed by way of case stated against his conviction for having felled more than five cubic metres of wood without a licence. He argued that the summons had been issued out of time.
Held: The request to state a case failed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Agriculture

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.250593

Malcolm v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 27 Feb 2007

The defendant appealed against her conviction for driving with excess alcohol. The justices had retired and began to announce their decision on one point of law. Defence counsel then raised another matter in closing, and the magistrates allowed the prosecution further opportunity to bring evidence.
Held: The magistrates had this discretion, and the appeal failed. The action by the defence was a classic improper ambush defence, and was so exceptional as to allow the magistrates to act as they had.

Judges:

Maurice lKay LJ, Stanley Burnton J

Citations:

Times 04-Apr-2007, [2007] EWHC 363 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – James v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 13-Nov-2015
The appellant challenged her conviction for failing to comply with conditions imposed on a public demonstration. Her demonstration outside the Royal Courts of Justice had brought traffic to a standstill. At trial she had been refused permission to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249380

Regina v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex parte Sinclair; Sinclair v Director of Public Prosecutions: HL 1991

The applicant had left the USA after conviction, but before his prison term commenced, and a warrant issued. Nine years later he was arrested in the UK, and extradition sought. He said that the extradition was time-barred under the Order. The magistrates, and divisional court rejected the argument saying his claim was an abuse of process.
Held: A magistrate hearing an extradition application had no power to determine an abuse of process application, his powers being limited to those set out in the Act. The article in the Order referred only to the commencement of a criminal prosecution, and did not refer to later stages of a prosecution which had itself been timeous. About 11(3) of the 1989 Act, ‘By this section a radical alteration has been made by giving to the High Court, in part at least, the same kind of discretion as to whether or not to discharge an applicant as the Secretary of State has in deciding whether or not to order a fugitive criminal to be returned to a requesting state. ‘

Judges:

Lord Ackner

Citations:

[1991] 2 AC 64, [1991] 2 All ER 366, [1991] CLY 1750

Statutes:

United States of America Extradition Order 1976 Av(1)(b), Extradition Act 1870 3 8 9 10, Extradition Act 1989 11(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Atkinson v Government of the United States HL 1969
The House heard an appeal from the magistrates’ refusal to commit the accused in the course of extradition proceedings.
Held: There is no abuse of process jurisdiction in extradition proceedings. There is no power to state a case in relation . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (Kashamu) v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another; Regina (Kashamu) v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court; Regina (Makhlulif and Another) v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court QBD 23-Nov-2001
Where a magistrates’ court heard an application for extradition, it was within its proper ambit to assess the lawfulness of the detention of the suspect in the light of the Human Rights Convention, but not to stray onto issues which were only for . .
Re-affirmed – Regina (Warda) v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another QBD 13-Feb-2002
When making an extradition order, the court did not have to consider each provision of the Act. Parliament did not intend for it to be part of the function of the district judge to occupy his time deciding whether the many and varied treaty . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Launder Admn 6-Aug-1996
The exercise of a discretion on extradition is judicially reviewable in the same way as are other decisions. . .
Cited – RB (Algeria) and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department; OO (Jordan) v Same; MT (Algeria) v Same HL 18-Feb-2009
Fairness of SIAC procedures
Each defendant was to be deported for fear of involvement in terrorist activities, but feared that if returned to their home countries, they would be tortured. The respondent had obtained re-assurances from the destination governments that this . .
Cited – Lukaszewski v The District Court In Torun, Poland SC 23-May-2012
Three of the appellants were Polish citizens resisting European Arrest Warrants. A fourth (H), a British citizen, faced extradition to the USA. An order for the extradition of eachhad been made, and acting under advice each filed a notice of appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Magistrates

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.182206

Regina v Inner London Justices ex parte Cukic: Admn 1 Sep 1995

The applicant sought judicial review of the refusal of the magistrates to state a case for him to appeal to the High Court. He had been convicted of failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis. The magistrates considered the request frivolous within the 1980 Act. He held, as a finding of fact, that the defendant had not been misled by the form as he claimed to have been.
Held: the request to state a case was frivolous, and was properly refused.

Judges:

The Lord Chief Justice Of England (Lord Bingham Of Cornhill ) And Mr Justice Cresswell

Citations:

[1995] EWHC Admin 3

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 7(6), Magistrates Courts Act 1980 111(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Billington 1988
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Road Traffic

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.136188

Regina (DPP) v Sunderland MC: Admn k 2014

When determining an application for a summons a magistrate must ascertain whether the allegation is of an offence known to law, and if so whether the essential ingredients of the offence are prima facie present
The court observed: ‘[The magistrate] was obliged to come to a judicial conclusion on whether or not to issue either or both summonses, and that required a review of whether there were prima facie evidence of the ingredients of the common law offence. We have set them out. Had he conducted a rigorous analysis of the legal framework, he could not reasonably have concluded that there was such.’
As to the bringing of private prosecutions, the court stated: ‘The citizen enjoys the right to bring a private prosecution in England and Wales. It is an important safeguard against improper inaction by a prosecuting authority. It is, however, not unfettered . . ‘

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 613 (Admin)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Kay and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Leeds Magistrates’ Court and Another Admn 23-May-2018
Full Duty of Disclosure on Private Prosecutor
The claimant challenged the issue of a summons by the magistrate on the complaint of a private prosecutor.
Held: The challenge succeeded. A private prosecutor and his lawyers had a duty of candour and of full disclosure. The prosecutor having . .
Cited – Johnson v Westminster Magistrates’ Court Admn 3-Jul-2019
Public Office Misconduct – Acting As not While
The claimant sought judicial review of a decision to issue a summons against him alleging three offences of misconduct in public office. He was said to have issue misleading statements in support of the campaign leading up to the Referendum on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.639246

Director of Public Prosecutors v Gane: Admn 1991

The defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol and being in charge of a vehicle with excess alcohol. It was clear that on the facts the former charge included the latter. The magistrates found the facts proved but convicted only on the driving charge and acquitted on the lesser charge. The prosecutor appealed by way of case stated. The justices stated in the case that they had concluded that it would be oppressive to convict on the lesser charge because they were only dealing with a single set of facts.
Held: The court said that the Magistrates’ Court was wrong to acquit on the lesser charge. Taylor LJ said: ‘If, however, the prosecution had at that stage wished to keep its position open, pending any possible appeal with regard to the driving offence, certain alternatives were available.
Section 10 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 provides for adjournment of trial as follows: ‘A magistrates’ court may at any time, whether before or after beginning to try an information, adjourn the trial, and may do so, notwithstanding anything in this Act, when composed of a single justice.’
The justices could, therefore, have adjourned the alternative charge No.2 sine die, which would have left it open for them to pursue it to conviction had the matter been referred back after a successful appeal on charge 4. Alternatively, they could have convicted of it and imposed a concurrent disqualification on that charge but no further penalty if they felt it would have been oppressive to have imposed any further fine. The result of that would have been that if a successful appeal had been mounted in regard to the driving charge there would still have remained a conviction on the alternative offence of charge 2 with an appropriate disqualification, although of course no fine.’

Judges:

Taylor LJ, Rougier J

Citations:

[1991] Crim LR 711, [1991] JP 846

Statutes:

Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dyer, Regina (on The Application of) v Watford Magistrates Court Admn 16-Jan-2012
The appellant sought judicial review of the magistrates’ decision to convict him of the two offences of causing racially aggravated fear or provocation of violence, contrary to section 31(1)(a) of the 1998 Act, and of causing fear or provocation of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.510022

Sutton London Borough Council v Davis (Number 2): FD 8 Jul 1994

The local authority had refused to register a childminder, who successfully appealed to the magistrates, who awarded costs in her favour. The local authority appealed against the costs order. In doing so the authority urged the court to apply, by analogy, the principle that costs are not usually ordered in child cases.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The local authority had erred in concluding that the respondent was not fit to mind children, but their stance in relation to Mrs Davis was neither reprehensible nor unreasonable.
In a large Magistrates Court family case the LAB was to be allowed to assess costs before a decision was to be made by the Justices. Justices may award costs in an adversarial children matter, and await Legal Aid Board’s assessment on the amount. It was not the normal practice to award costs in child care cases.
Wilson J said: ‘Where the debate surrounds the future of a child, the proceedings are partly inquisitorial and the aspiration is that in their outcome the child is the winner and indeed the only winner. The court does not wish the spectre of an order for costs to discourage those with a proper interest in the child from participating in the debate. Nor does it wish to reduce the chance of their co-operation around the future life of the child by casting one as the successful party entitled to his costs and another as the unsuccessful party obliged to pay them. The proposition applies in its fullest form to proceedings between parents and other relations; but it also applies to proceedings to which a local authority are a party. Thus, even when a local authority’s application for a care order is dismissed, it is unusual to order them to pay the costs of the other parties. But the proposition is not applied where, for example, the conduct of a party has been reprehensible or the party’s stance has been beyond the band of what is reasonable: Havering London Borough Council v S [1986] 1 FLR 489 and Gojkovic v Gojkovic [1992] Fam 40, 60C-D.’
and ‘In care proceedings the local authority and all other parties come into court in order to assist it in choosing the programme for the child’s future which will best serve his or her welfare. In the case of Mrs Davis the local authority made an incorrect decision as to her fitness. She had a right to be registered and they infringed it. Mrs Davis afforded them the opportunity to review their decision by lodging an objection pursuant to section 77(3) of the Children Act 1989. But they resolved that the decision should stand. In order to establish her right to be registered, Mrs Davis had to appeal to the magistrates’ court. The proceedings were adversarial and the local authority lost the argument. Such were the circumstances for application of the principle that costs should follow the event. Far from being satisfied that the justices were plainly wrong to decide that the local authority should pay the costs of Mrs Davis, I consider that they were right.’

Judges:

Wilson J

Citations:

Independent 08-Jul-1994, Gazette 31-Aug-1994, [1994] 1 WLR 1317

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Sutton London Borough Council v Davis FD 17-Mar-1994
Local Authority need not be inflexible in assessing fitness of child minder – smacking. A child minder refusing to sign Local Authority’s no-smack undertaking can still be registered. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Corner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 1-Mar-2005
The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the . .
See Also – Sutton London Borough Council v Davis FD 17-Mar-1994
Local Authority need not be inflexible in assessing fitness of child minder – smacking. A child minder refusing to sign Local Authority’s no-smack undertaking can still be registered. . .
Cited – In re T (Children) SC 25-Jul-2012
The local authority had commenced care proceedings, alleging abuse. After lengthy proceedings, of seven men and two grandparents, all but one were exonerated. The grandparents had not been entitled to legal aid, and had had to mortgage their house . .
Cited – In Re M (A Minor) (Local Authority’s Costs) FD 9-Jan-1995
The local authority applied for permission to refuse contact between two children and their parents. The magistrates refused the application and ordered the local authority to pay the father’s costs. The authority appealed.
Held: The appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Magistrates

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.89634

Lane v Gloucester Magistrates Court: Admn 28 Nov 2006

The claimant sought judicial review of his conviction by the magistrates for contempt of court: ‘The Administrative Court office wrote to Mr Lane on 22nd November, almost a week ago, pointing out that the right of appeal against orders made under section 12 of the 1981 Act consists of a right of appeal to the Crown Court under section 108 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, not to this court. That is indeed the position. Section 12(5) of the 1981 Act states that section 108 applies to an order under section 12 and in its turn section 108 creates a right of appeal to the Crown Court. No right of appeal to this court, whether by case stated or in any other form, is created. However, what is possible in these circumstances is to seek permission to begin judicial review proceedings. They are not excluded by any statutory provision. Judicial review may lie if something has gone wrong with the decision-making process, but, as we have explained to Mr Lane this afternoon, it does not provide a means of challenging a decision on its merits which appears to form at least part of what Mr Lane seeks.’

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 3198 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Contempt of Court Act 1981 12, Magistrates Courts Act 1980 108

Cited by:

Cited – Haw and Another v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court Admn 12-Dec-2007
The defendants appealed convictions for contempt of court, on the basis of having wilfully interrupted the court. The respondent said that no appeal lay.
Held: The statute was ambiguous, and ‘there can be no good reason why a person convicted . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court, Magistrates

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.247467

Regina v Haringey Magistrates’ Court ex parte Amvrosiou: Admn 13 Jun 1996

When the appellant appeared at the Magistrates’ Court to answer a charge of driving whilst uninsured, a preliminary point was taken on her behalf that the prosecution had not been commenced within 6 months of the date on which evidence sufficient in the opinion of the prosecutor to warrant proceedings had become available. In response the prosecutor relied upon a certificate issue under section 6(3). The Magistrates, having heard argument, formed the view that the certificate issued by the prosecution as to its date of knowledge was conclusive and that they could not go behind it. They held further that the proceedings were not an abuse of process. The defendant appealed the decision that the magistrates could not go behind the certificate.
Auld LJ had this to say about the circumstances in which a prosecutor’s certificate was susceptible to challenge: ‘Ms Gumbel, who appeared on behalf of the Applicant, submitted that the Magistrates were wrong to rule that they could not hear evidence going behind the certificate as to the date on which there was evidence sufficient for the prosecutor to mount these proceedings. She frankly conceded that there are no reported authorities giving guidance on the interpretation of section 6(3). However, she drew our attention to decisions in other contexts on the meaning of ‘conclusive evidence’. She referred us to a number of cases of contract and of public record where the courts have had to consider how conclusive the evidence is whenever a dispute arises as to underlying matters. They show in the main a resolve by the court to give the predictable effect of those words. A good indication of the general approach is to be found in the judgment of Simonds J in Kerr v Mottram Ltd [1940] Ch 657 where the term ‘conclusive evidence’ was considered in the context of articles of association of a company. Simonds J said: ‘I have no doubt that the words ‘conclusive evidence’ mean what they say; that they are to be a bar to any evidence being tendered to show that the statements and the minutes are not correct.’
Ms Gumbel sought to distinguish that and the other authorities, to which she helpfully referred us, by reference to the fact that in the contract cases the conclusiveness of evidence was clearly the mutual intention of the parties, and in the cases of public record there was a public interest or an interest of a third party to be considered for whom certainty in such matters is important. She submitted that in the context of a prosecution of an individual there are different considerations. She maintained that the original 6-month period for issuing proceedings should be given certainty, and that an extension of that time limit however achieved, in this instance by certification, on a basis that is not justified on the facts should be open to investigation by Magistrates.
Mr McGuinness, adopting the words of Simonds J in Kerr v Mottram, submitted that the sub-section means what it says, that the certificate is conclusive evidence and that if a court, whether a Magistrates’ court or this court, were to look at evidence put forward as capable of unseating the certificate the word ‘conclusive’ would have no meaning. He submitted that there were only two possible exceptions:
(i) where it is plain that there has been fraud, and
(ii) where the certificate is wrong or arguably wrong on its face.
He referred to a helpful summary of the law which is set out in volume 17 of the current edition of Halsbury’s Laws, at paragraph 28, which has a side heading:
‘Prima facie, sufficient and conclusive evidence’.
As to ‘conclusive evidence’ it reads:’
‘Conclusive evidence means that no contrary evidence will be effective to displace it, unless the so called conclusive evidence is inaccurate on its face, or fraud can be shown.’
It is not suggested here that the certificate can be said to be inaccurate on its face, and no fraud is alleged.
The clear purpose of section 6(3) is to achieve certainty, both for the prosecutor and for the Defendant, and to prevent what would otherwise be an exercise in discovery of a prosecuting process as to when a particular information came to hand and as to when decisions as to its sufficiency could or should have been made. Clearly any such possibility in the context of this sort of provision would be an intolerable burden to the prosecution and a cog on the wheels of justice at summary level.
It has to be remembered, too, that the test in section 6(1) is whether the date on which evidence ‘sufficient in the opinion of the prosecutor to warrant the proceedings has come to his knowledge’. As in many other matters concerning the prosecution of offences there is a margin of judgment given to the prosecutor. In my view, there is no way of going behind section 6(3) as suggested by Ms Gumbel so as to negate its clear provision that a certificate for this purpose is conclusive, save possibly in the two exceptional cases to which I have referred.’

Judges:

Auld LJ, Ebsworth J

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 14

Statutes:

Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Lamont-Perkins v Royal Society for The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals (RSPCA) Admn 24-Apr-2012
The defendant had been convicted of animal cruelty. She appealed to the Crown Court, and now appealed against rulings made by the judge as to the time limits for a prosecution under the 2006 Act in the Magistrates Court. She said that the RSPCA . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Magistrates

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.136562

Charlson, Regina (on the Application of) v Guildford Magistrates’ Court and others: Admn 11 Sep 2006

The CPS had discontinued a prosecution. The magistrates were then asked to issue a summons for a private prosecution. The private prosecutor appealed against the refusal to issue the summons. A second summons was requested from a different magistrates court. That request was successful, but the second court withdrew its summons when informed of the first application.
Held: The court should distinguish between a case where it is sought to bring a private prosecution where there is already a prosecution by the Crown Prosecution Service in being and a case where the Crown Prosecution Service has discontinued a prosecution. This critical difference means that the fact the prosecution does not reach the threshold set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors does not preclude a private prosecution from being instituted if there is no prosecution by the Crown Prosecution Service in being. The first magistrate’s decision was therefore to be reconsidered.

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 2318 (Admin), Times 29-Sep-2006, [2007] 3 All ER 163, [2006] 1 WLR 349

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 1(1)

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate Ex Parte Chaudhry QBD 9-Jul-1993
The Crown Prosecution Service was in the process of pursuing a prosecution when the private prosecutor sought to bring a prosecution for a serious offence arising out of the same facts. There would be potentially concurrent prosecutions.
Held: . .
Cited – Regina v West London Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Klahn QBD 1979
The issue of a summons by a magistrate is a judicial act: ‘The duty of a magistrate in considering an application for the issue of a summons is to exercise a judicial discretion in deciding whether or not to issue a summons. It would appear that he . .

Cited by:

Cited – Scopelight Ltd and Others v Chief of Police for Northumbria CA 5-Nov-2009
The claimant sought return of items removed by the defendants under the 1984 Act. A decision had been made against a prosecution by the police. The police wished to hold onto the items to allow a decision from the second defendant.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.245058

Cunliffe, Regina (on the Application of) v West London Magistrates’ Court: Admn 6 Jul 2006

The claimant was an employee of the company manufacturing alcohol measuring devices. He sought judicial review of decisions by magistrates to require him to attend court to give evidence which would require him to breach obligations of confidence he had undertaken.
Held: Judicial review proceedings were available if necessary to quash witness summonses issued under section 97. The requests for the summonses had been little more than fishing expeditions by the defendants, and the summonses should not have been issued.

Judges:

May LJ, Forbes J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 2081 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts Act 1980 97

Citing:

Cited – Hoar-Stevens v Richmond Magistrates’ Court Admn 23-Oct-2003
The court considered an application to quash an order requiring the attendance of the claimant to give evidence: ‘Normally this court will not entertain an application for a quashing order in relation to a decision made in a magistrates’ court where . .
Cited – Regina v Hove Justices ex-parte Donne 1967
. .
Cited – Streames v Copping 1985
The court considered the power to require magistrates to state a case on an interloctory issue.
Held: Where the Justices had not made a final determination they had no jurisdiction to state a case. Section 111 applies only to a final . .
Cited – Regina (Howe) v South Durham Magistrates Court QBD 13-Feb-2004
The defendant was convicted of driving whilst disqualified. He had put the prosecution to proof of the fact that it was he who had been prosecuted. The prosecution called his solicitor to give evidence that it was his client who had been banned on . .
Cited – Regina v Skegness Magistrates’ Court ex parte Cardy 1985
Representations that the Intoximeter or other device used for measuring breath alcohol, should not have been approved or that the Secretary of State should have withdrawn approval in respect of the device should be addressed to the Secretary of . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Wood; Director of Public Prosecutions v McGillicuddy Admn 19-Jan-2006
Each defendant sought disclosure of materials concerning the intoximeter instruments, having been charged with driving with excess alcohol. The defendants said that the meters were inaccurate and that the manufacturers were in effect part of the . .
Cited – Regina v Tower Bridge Magistrates’ Court, ex-parte Director of Public Prosecutions 1988
A witness summons issued by a Stipendiary Magistrate compelling a police officer to produce the service record and log of a breath-testing instrument was quashed on the basis that it was a ‘fishing expedition.’ . .
Cited – Regina v Derby Magistrates Court Ex Parte B HL 19-Oct-1995
No Breach of Solicitor Client Confidence Allowed
B was charged with the murder of a young girl. He made a confession to the police, but later changed his story, saying his stepfather had killed the girl. He was acquitted. The stepfather was then charged with the murder. At his committal for trial, . .
Cited – Regina v Reading Justices ex parte Berkshire County Council QBD 5-May-1995
Disclosure by third parties in criminal proceedings was not affected by other new rule. Simon Brown LJ summarised the tests for materiality for requiring production of dicuments from third parties by magistrates: ‘The central principles . . . are as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244238

Cleary, Regina (on the Application of) v Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court and others: Admn 26 Jul 2006

The police sought the closure of premises under an anti-social behaviour order.
Held: A body seeking such an order had an obligation to serve written copies of the evidence upon which they wished to rely on the proposed respondent. The respondent had therefore been entitled to the adjournment he sought but was refused by the magistrates when such evidence was not served.
May LJ referred to the legislative intention that closure orders should be dealt with speedily. In that context, it was obviously important that the police provide affected persons with all the information that they should fairly have, in sufficient time for the hearing to be completed within the period contemplated.
As to disclosure he said: ‘I have said that the police should serve in advance written versions of the evidence that they propose to adduce. The claimant in the present proceedings maintains that the police should also, on request, make further wide-ranging disclosure of material which they may not wish to adduce, but which may be generally relevant. This, in my view, is generally too broad and would tend to frustrate the statutory expectation that applications for closure orders should be dealt with expeditiously.
The Civil Procedure Rules do not specifically apply in magistrates’ courts. But CPR r 31(6) seems to me to be a good guide to what is necessary and proportionate. This provides that standard disclosure requires a party to disclose only the documents on which he relies and documents which adversely affect his own case or support another party’s case. The Commissioner is concerned that a requirement such as this would be imprecise so as to frustrate the statutory purpose. He suggests that there should be no initial duty to disclose in advance of a written statement on behalf of the defendant of the nature of his defence and a specific request for particular admissible documents relevant to that defence. I have some general sympathy with this, in that disclosure under the CPR supposes that the parties have exchanged pleadings crystallizing the issues. Requests for documents should certainly be for specific relevant documents and not a fishing expedition. But applications for closure orders threaten to trample on defendant’s article 8 rights and defendants may be vulnerable and unrepresented. I think, therefore, that the police should disclose documents which clearly and materially affect their case adversely or support the defendant’s case.’
May LJ continued: ‘In my view, it is not appropriate for this Court to address and decide questions of disclosure at a detailed level. We should be prepared to give some general guidance. In doing so, I note and respect submissions to the effect that judicial review applications of procedural decisions of magistrates’ courts should not normally be entertained. I generally agree with and endorse this. Such applications are normally unnecessary and disruptive. It is normally preferable for the proceedings to continue and for any surviving challenge to be made on appeal or otherwise after the magistrates have made a substantive decision . . ‘

Judges:

May LJ, Langstaff J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1869 (Admin), Times 12-Sep-2006, [2007] 1 WLR 1272, [2007] 1 All ER 270

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003

Cited by:

Cited – Newman v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis Admn 25-Mar-2009
The defendant appealed against the admission of evidence on the respondent’s application for a football bannng order. A witness statement was based on intelligence reports which meant that the witness could not be effectively examined by he defence. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243422

Director of Public Prosecutions, Regina (on the Application of) v Chorley Justices and Forrest: Admn 8 Jun 2006

The prosecutor applied for an order to require the magistrates to state a case. He faced a charge of driving with excess alcohol. He pleaded not guilty. There were several adjournments, and a considerable delay. At the trial, and with no forewarning, the defence requested the prosecution to prove service of the certificate of analysis. The address used had been partially incorrect. The magistrates upheld a submission of no case to answer, and rejected a request to state a case as frivolous.
Held: The purpose of the system was to avoid unnecessary litigation and delay.
Thomas LJ said: ‘In April 2005 the Criminal Procedure Rules came into effect. By 15th April they were in force. They have effected a sea change in the way in which cases should be conducted, but it appears from what has happened in this case that not everyone has appreciated the fundamental change to the conduct of cases in the Magistrates’ Courts that has been brought about by the rules. The rules make clear that the overriding objective is that criminal cases be dealt with justly; that includes acquitting the innocent and convicting the guilty, dealing with the prosecution and the defence fairly, respecting the interests of witnesses, dealing with the case efficiently and expeditiously, and also, of great importance, dealing with the case in a way that takes into account the gravity of the offence, the complexity of what is in issue, the severity of the consequences to the defendant and others affected and the needs of other cases. Rule 1.2 imposes upon the duty of participants in a criminal case to prepare and conduct the case in accordance with the overriding objective, to comply with the rules and, importantly, to inform the court and all parties of any significant failure, whether or not the participant is responsible for that failure, to take any procedural step required by the rules.
Rule 3.2 imposes upon the court a duty to further that overriding objective by actively managing the case.
The pertinent part relevant to what happened in this case is the early identification of the real issues. It is, it seems to us, clear that what should have happened is that at the first hearing of a case of this kind, after the entry of the plea of not guilty, the defendant should have been asked first what was in issue. At that stage and at the first hearing, he should then have been asked what witnesses did he need. Quite apart from the question that has arisen in relation to the analyst’s certificate, we simply have no idea why three police officers (who could have been much better employed in protecting the public by being available to do their duty on the beat or elsewhere) were called to court. On what appears before us, their attendance was a complete waste of time and money as the evidence was irrelevant to the issues. Mr Forrest should, thirdly, have been asked what issues were taken by the defence. In our experience, it is very rare in a court, when such a question is asked, that parties do not reply. Most people approach a case on the basis that they want justice done as they wish to be acquitted if they are innocent; it is our experience that the case where a defendant refuses to identify the issue is rare indeed. If a defendant refuses to identify what the issues are, one thing is clear: he can derive no advantage from that or seek, as appears to have happened in this case, to attempt an ambush at trial. The days of ambushing and taking last-minute technical points are gone. They are not consistent with the overriding objective of deciding cases justly, acquitting the innocent and convicting the guilty.’

Judges:

Thomas LJ, McCombe J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1795 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 7 9, Criminal Procedure Rules 1.2

Citing:

Cited – Wings Ltd v Ellis QBD 1984
Mann J said: ‘The most that could be said for the respondent is that the members of this class [those ruling the company], although establishing a system, failed to establish a system which would have prevented the mistake which occurred. That . .
Cited – Sunworld Limited v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council QBD 2000
The company faced a prosecution under the 1968 Act, in respect of a brochure. On conviction, the company asked the Crown Court to state a case for the Divisional Court. The Recorder refused as to two points, saying that they were decisions of fact . .

Cited by:

Cited – Brett v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 16-Mar-2009
The defendant faced trial for driving whilst over the prescribed alcohol limit. On a pre-trial review, the prosecution had applied for the evidence of the analyst to be given under the hearsay provisions, on the basis that she was living abroad. She . .
Cited – Bielecki v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 23-Aug-2011
The court had delivered a draft judgment which counsel said was based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the case she had presented. Counsel now suggested that the matter should be referred to a two judge divisional court. That was refused. The . .
Cited – Newell, Regina v CACD 30-Mar-2012
The appellant challenged the introduction in evidence of a previous inconsistent statement lodged on his behalf by counsel on a Plea and Case Management Form at a directions hearing.
Held: The appeal was allowed. An advocate plainly has . .
Cited – James v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 13-Nov-2015
The appellant challenged her conviction for failing to comply with conditions imposed on a public demonstration. Her demonstration outside the Royal Courts of Justice had brought traffic to a standstill. At trial she had been refused permission to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Magistrates

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243377

Crown Prosecution Service, Regina (on the Application of) v Bow Street Magistrates Court and others: Admn 18 Jul 2006

The defendants were said to have been found in possession of false passports. They successfully argued that the offence charged under the 1981 Act had been repealed by the 2006 Act. The prosecutor argued that a Schedule only came into effect when explicitly made to come into effect.
Held: The prosecutor’s appeal succeeded. The 2006 Act came into effect when stated, but the court accepted the argument that ‘it is clear from the form and terms of the ICA 2006 that the repeals effectuated by it are repeals consequential upon the bringing into force of the relevant new provisions. To that end, the repeal Schedule 2 needs to be brought into force simultaneously with the new superseding provisions and sections 44(2) and 44(3) should be so construed. ‘ This interpretation was permissible since it imposed no additional burden or relief on the defendants.

Judges:

May LJ, Forbes J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1763 (Admin), [2007] 1 WLR 291, [2006] 4 All ER 1342

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 5, Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 6(1), Interpretation Act 1978 4, Identity Cards Act 2006 44(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Inco Europe Ltd and Others v First Choice Distributors (A Firm) and Others HL 10-Mar-2000
Although the plain words of the Act would not allow an appeal to the Court of Appeal under the circumstances presently applying, it was clear that the parliamentary draftsman had failed to achieve what he had wanted to, that the omission was in . .

Cited by:

Cited – Crown Prosecution Service v Inegbu Admn 26-Nov-2008
The CPS appealed aganst a decision on a charge under the railway byelaws, that the charge be dismissed, the prosecution not having formally proved in accordance with any applicable statutory provision. The byelaws had in fact been properly . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243314

Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v HM Courts Service (South West Region, Devon and Cornwall Area) and others: Admn 14 Jun 2006

The defendants sought judicial review of decisions by magistrates to substitute out of time properly named companies as defendants in cases under the 1990 Act.
Held: The court had repeated the error made in the Marco case, by substituting as a defendant a party not before the court. The effect of the district judge’s decision was, in my view, to prefer a charge against a new defendant outside the statutory time limit.

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1749 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Food Safety Act 1990 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Marco (Croydon) Ltd v Metropolitan Police Commissioner QBD 1983
The defendant company traded as A and J Bull Containers. They hired out a builder’s skip which was left out, unlit, on the highway at night. A cyclist rode into it and died. An information was laid against ‘A J Bull Ltd’, charging an offence under . .
Cited – Regina v Greater Manchester Justices Ex Parte Aldi Gmbh and Co Kg; Aldi Gmbh v Mulvenna QBD 28-Dec-1994
The substitution of a defendant in a case before the magistrates was challengeable where it was not a mere mistake in the name of the defendant. The wholesalers who should have been named had been in correspondence for some time with the prosecutor . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Consumer, Magistrates, Crime

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243311

Director of Public Prosecutions v Meakin: Admn 4 May 2006

Appeal against stay of prosecution as abuse of process.
Held: The appeal failed. Openshaw J said: ‘The concept of a fair trial involves fairness to the prosecution and to the public as well as to the defendant.’

Judges:

Scott Baker LJ, Openshaw J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1067 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Gleeson CACD 16-Oct-2003
At the close of the prosecution case, the defendant’s counsel submitted that, following Nock, there was no case to answer. The prosecution sought to amend the indictment by adding an allegation of a statutory conspiracy, and to re-open the case, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241744

Murchison v Southend Magistrates’ Court: Admn 24 Jan 2006

The defendant faced an accusation of having slapped a child in the street. The child’s carer had called the police to say that she thought the complaint a practical joke. The defendant did not give evidence. The magistrates retired and came back to convict him, but saying that they had seen his antecedents, which had been excluded from the evidence. The clerk gave evidence that she had only provided the conviction details after the magistrates had already confirmed after retirement that they had decided to convict.
Held: The fact that the magistrates did not know of the defendant’s record was established, and it was sufficient to distnguish this case from historical cases. The conviction stood, but it was clear that the practice had not been the best.

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 569 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Anufrijeva HL 26-Jun-2003
The appellant challenged the withdrawal of her benefits payments. She had applied for asylum, and been granted reduced rate income support. A decision was made refusing her claim, but that decision was, by policy, not communicated to her for several . .
Cited – Regina v Birmingham Magistrates Court ex parte Robinson 1986
. .
Cited – Regina v Coates; Regina v Graves; Regina v Terry CACD 30-Jul-2004
Each defendant had appealed. The appeals had been heard but the decisions not announced. One of the judges, Lord Justice Kay died.
Held: It was not open to the remaining judges to announce their decisions, whatever discussions had taken place . .
Cited – Regina v Downham Market Magistrates Court ex parte Nudd 1988
Where a magistrate becomes aware or might have become aware of an accused’s record before verdict, there had been a material irregularity and the conviction could not stand. Justice must be seen to be done, and any perception of improper bias must . .
Cited – Davies v Griffiths 1936
The proper procedure for justices is that Magistrates should announce the decision to convict before inquiring of the previous convictions and, that being so, the defendant or his counsel should have the further opportunity of addressing the Court. . .
Cited – Regina v East Kerrier Justices ex parte Mundy 1952
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.240059

Stavrinou, Regina (on the Application Of) v Horseferry Road Justices: Admn 22 Feb 2006

The claimant asked for judicial review of a decision to adjourn the case against him on a charge of driving with excess alcohol. The district judge had already insisted on the date fixed for the hearing as against the defendant, but then adjourned when prosecution witnesses did not appear. The court did not allow defence counsel to finish addressing them before adjourning.
Held: the court expressed considerable surprise that both the magistartes and the CPS were represented by the same counsel. The magistrates adjourned on that basis that the defence was at fault when they were not, and therefore the magistrates failed to consider the consequences to the defendant in costs. In any event the prosecutions analyst had failed to attend a second time. ‘The prosecution in reality was being given a leeway denied to the defence with no certain prospects of costs redress.’ In the circumstances the proceedings were stayed permanently.

Judges:

Ousely J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 566 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Essen v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 12-May-2005
. .
Cited – Regina v Hereford Magistrates’ Court (ex parte Rowlands, Ingram); Regina v Harrow Youth Court (ex parte Prussia) Admn 10-Feb-1997
The power to adjourn a trial is conferred upon Justices by statute. The divisional court will intervene where defendants have been deprived of a fair opportunity to present their case. The decision whether to grant an adjournment is not a mechanical . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Magistrates

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.240063

Regina v Derby Crown Court, ex parte Brooks: QBD 1985

The court set out the characteristics of abuse of process in criminal matters. It may be an abuse of process if: ‘the prosecution have manipulated or misused the process of the court so as to deprive the defendant of a protection provided by the law or to take unfair advantage of a technicality.’ and ‘The ultimate objective of this discretionary power is to ensure that there should be a fair trial according to law, which involves fairness both to the defendant and the prosecution.’
‘The power to stop a prosecution arises only when it is an abuse of the process of the court. It may be an abuse of process if either (a) the prosecution have manipulated or misused the process of the court so as to deprive the defendant of a protection provided by the law or to take unfair advantage of a technicality, or (b) on the balance of probability the defendant has been, or will be, prejudiced in the preparation or conduct of his defence by delay on the part of the prosecution which is unjustifiable: for example, not due to the complexity of the inquiry and preparation of the prosecution case, or to the action of the defendant or his co-accused, or to genuine difficulty in effecting service. . The ultimate objective of this discretionary power is to ensure that there should be a fair trial according to law, which involves fairness both to the defendant and the prosecution’

Judges:

Lord Lane CJ, Sir Roger Ormrod

Citations:

[1985] 80 Cr App R 164

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Sang HL 25-Jul-1979
The defendant appealed against an unsuccessful application to exclude evidence where it was claimed there had been incitement by an agent provocateur.
Held: The appeal failed. There is no defence of entrapment in English law. All evidence . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Humphrys HL 1977
Humphrys was charged with driving while disqualified. The issue was the correctness of the identification by a police constable. In evidence, Humphrys denied that he was the driver, or indeed that he had driven any car during the year in question. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Telford Justices, ex parte Badhan CACD 1991
The defendant was accused of a sexual offence alleged to have been committed some 15 years earlier. He asked the magistrates to dismiss the charge as an abuse of process, and now appealed their refusal.
Held: The onus was on the accused to . .
Cited – Regina v J HL 14-Oct-2004
The defendant was to have been accused of having unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16. Proceedings could not be brought, because the allegation was more than a year old, and he was instead accused of indecent assault, but on the same . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (No 1 of 1990) CACD 1990
A police officer attended an incident where two people were arrested. Complaints about his conduct were made of which he was given notice. A formal investigation was instituted and adjourned pending the outcome of criminal proceedings against those . .
Cited – Re Molloy’s Application CANI 1998
. .
Cited – Taylor v Regina CACD 20-Dec-2013
The defendant appealed against his conviction, for sex offences some 33 years earlier, saying that the convictions had been unfairly obtained. Evidence had been available since 1980, but a decision not to prosecute had been taken.
Held: ‘the . .
Applied – Regina v Merthyr Tydfil Magistrates Court and Day ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 1989
The defendant had been in custody for a different offence on the day when the magistrates were due to try him, and he was not produced. The prosecutor only learned of the other conviction on that day, and sought an adjournment. Instead the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.194829

Regina v Worthing Justices, ex parte Norvell: QBD 1981

The applicants requested the magistrates court to issue summonses for a private prosecution on two allegations of perjury. The request was dealt with by the Justices’ Clerk, who refused it. He asked the other Justices to reconsider the request, and they refused.
Held: The consideration by the clerk was as by a Magistrate, and therefore the other Magistrates were unable to reconsider the request.
There is no obligation on a Magistrate to give written reasons why an application for a summons is granted or refused

Citations:

[1981] 1 WLR 413

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ball v Johnson 29-May-2019
Summons granted for political lies allegation
(Westminster Magistrates Court) The court gave its reasons for acceding to a request for the issue of a summons requiring the defendant to answer a charge for three offences alleging misconduct in a public office.
Held: There was prima facie . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.638248

Rex v Borron: 1820

A criminal information was applied for against a magistrate.
Abbott CJ said: ‘They [magistrates] are indeed, like every other subject of this kingdom, answerable to the law for the faithful and upright discharge of their trust and duties. But, whenever they have been challenged upon this head, either by way of indictment, or application to this Court for a criminal information, the question has always been, not whether the act done might, upon full and mature investigation, be found strictly right, but from what motive it had proceeded; whether from a dishonest, oppressive, or corrupt motive, under which description, fear and favour may generally be included, or from mistake or error. In the former case, alone, they have become the objects of punishment. To punish as a criminal any person who, in the gratuitous exercise of a public trust, may have fallen into error or mistake belongs only to the despotic ruler of an enslaved people, and is wholly abhorrent from the jurisprudence of this kingdom.’ and
‘the question has always been, not whether the act done might, upon full and mature investigation, be found strictly right, but from what motive it had proceeded; whether from a dishonest, oppressive, or corrupt motive, under which description fear and favour may generally be included, or from mistake or error. In the former case, alone, they have become the objects of punishment.’

Judges:

Abbott CJ

Citations:

(1820) 3 B and Ald 432, [1820] EngR 136, (1820) 3 B and A 432, (1820) 106 ER 721

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Llewellyn-Jones CACD 1968
The Registrar of a County Court was convicted of offences of misconduct in public office. The indictment charged ‘misbehaviour in a public office, contrary to common law’ and alleged that court orders had been made ‘with the intention of gaining . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 2003) CACD 7-Apr-2004
Police Officers had been acquitted of misconduct in public office. They had stood by in a police station custody suite as a prisoner lay on the floor and died.
Held: The trial took place before R -v- G which had overruled Caldwell. The . .
Cited – Regina v W CACD 2-Mar-2010
The defendant appealed against his conviction for misconduct in public office. As a police officer he had used an official credit card to pay for personal items. He said that he believed this was allowed where he intended to discharge the debt. He . .
Cited – ABC and Others, Regina v CACD 26-Mar-2015
Several defendants sought to appeal against convictions. They were public officials accused of having committed misconduct in public office in the sale of information relating to their work to journalists. The journalists were convicted of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Magistrates

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.196546

Jones v Whalley: Admn 10 May 2005

The defendant had been cautioned by the police for an assault on the claimant. The claimant then began a private prosecution which the magistrates stayed as an abuse of process.
Held: The caution administered was not simply a conviction so as to found a defence of autrefois convict. ‘the justices have approached the question of abuse on a false legal premise.’ The form of notice given to the defendant was misleading, but ‘the fact that the caution included no proviso, as it should have done, about possible proceedings by the victim, is [not] sufficient to render the exercise of the right of private prosecution an abuse of process. ‘

Judges:

Sedley LJ, Beatson J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 931 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Croydon Justices Ex Parte Dean QBD 9-Mar-1993
The applicant a 17 year old assisted the police in a murder investigation on the understanding, induced by the police, that he would not himself be prosecuted. Some weeks later, at the instance of the CPS, the applicant was charged with a lesser . .
Cited – Hayter v L and Another QBD 3-Feb-1998
A private prosecution of a youth for an offence after he had accepted a caution was not an abuse of process, since the cautioner had warned him of the possibility. Poole J said: ‘The right of private prosecutions is subject to a number of procedural . .

Cited by:

Cited – Jones v Whalley HL 26-Jul-2006
The appellant had assaulted the respondent. He had accepted a caution for the offence, but the claimant had then pursued a private prosecution. He now appealed refusal of a stay, saying it was an abuse of process.
Held: The defendant’s appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235181

The Queen v D’Eyncourt: 1888

andpound;108 was seized by police as money obtained by false pretences, but the charges were confined to andpound;8 alone. The question arose whether the magistrate had jurisdiction under the 1839 Act to direct the delivery of goods which were seized by the police but were not the subject of any charge to the person (a Mary Ryan) from whom they were seized. The magistrate had directed that the balance of andpound;100 be delivered up to her.
Held: The court quashed the decision. The Act conferred no jurisdiction to make any order save in respect of goods the subject of a charge.
Wills J said: ‘As to andpound;8 odd, the defendant appears to have admitted that the sums of which it consisted were property to be returned to the [identified] persons from whom she concedes that she had received them. As to the rest of the sum [of andpound;100 odd] now in the hands of the police authorities, it seems clear, upon the facts stated to us, that it ought to be given to Mary Ryan: and it is clear that the possession she once had would give her the right to recover the money from anyone who could not show a better title. This would be so, even if the money had been obtained by false pretences from persons who with knowledge of the facts advisedly abstained from making any claim or if nothing could be shown as to whom was really entitled. The possessory right may perhaps go further. It is not necessary to express any opinion upon this point. We have no reason to suppose that the police authorities will not do what is right in the matter.’

Judges:

Wills J

Citations:

(1888) 21 QBD 109

Statutes:

Metropolitan Police Act 1839 29

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Field v Sullivan 1923
(Supreme Court of Victoria) The claimant claimed return of goods seized by the police believing them to be stolen. The theft was not established and the claimant as the party in possession at the time of the seizure was held entitled to their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Torts – Other, Magistrates

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.194105

Chief Constable of West Midlands Police v White: CA 13 Mar 1992

After conviction for licensing offences, the police seized a sum of money from the respondent which they alleged was the proceeds of unlicensed sales. The magistrates made no order on conviction, so the police brought the issue under the Act. The magistrate found that the money was the proceeds of illegal trading, but nevertheless held that Mr White was the owner of it. The police appealed.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Although the contracts for sale of unlicensed liquor were void and unenforceable, Mr White did become the owner of the money; it was impossible to identify any other persons as being the true owners of it; and the magistrate was not constrained on public policy grounds from making an order under the Act in favour of Mr White.

Judges:

Tudor Evans J, Beldam LJ

Citations:

Unreported, 13 March 1992

Statutes:

Police (Property) Act 1897 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Gough and Another v The Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police CA 2-Mar-2004
The claimants sought return of vehicle parts from the police. The police replied that the goods had been tampered with in such a way as to suggest they may have been stolen, and that they were therefore kept, even after the finish of the court . .
Cited – Jackson v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police QBD 22-Oct-1993
Mr Jackson was convicted of a drugs offence. On arrest, the police had seized money in his possession. No order as to the money was made at the trial. Mr Jackson applied under the Act. The magistrate accepted that Mr Jackson was the owner of the . .
Cited – Merseyside Police v Owens Admn 31-May-2012
The police had refused to returns items seized from Mr Owens on the basis that to do so would indirectly encourage and assist him in suspected criminal activity. CCTV footage had been removed from him to attempt identify an arsonist of a house.The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Magistrates

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.194108

Farley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Another: CA 25 Jan 2005

The Respondent had sought a liability order against the appellant, the non-resident parent in respect of child support maintenance arrears. The appellant had asked the magistrates to consider whether he was liable to pay child support maintenance, but they had declined.
Held: The section prevented the magistrates enquiring as to the amount of arrears, but not as to whether child support maintenance was payable at all. If not they might be making an order for a person’s comittal to prison without that person having a proper and convenient way of challenging the assertion that he was liable. In hearing an application for a liability order, the magistrates exercised an adjudicative function requiring evidence of liability in the absence of an admission. The liability order was quashed, and the case remitted.

Judges:

Lord Woolf LCJ, Lord Phillips of Wothr Matravers MR, Lord Slynn of Hadley.

Citations:

Times 27-Jan-2005, [2005] EWCA Civ 778

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Child Support Act 1991 33

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Farley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 12-Jul-2004
The defendant and his wife were separated. The Child Support Agency assessed the contributions he was to make, and eventually pursued him in the magistrates court for arrears. The defendant argued that whilst the Act did prevent the magistrates . .

Cited by:

Cited – Farley v Child Support Agency and Another; Farley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (No. 2) HL 28-Jun-2006
Magistrates were wrong to think they had a discretion to look at the validity of a liability assessment under child support legislation. The Act gave the payer alternative avenues of appeal, and therefore the Act should be read as it stated and the . .
See Also – Farley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (No 2) CA 22-Jun-2005
The Court of Apeal had previously considered an appeal from the grant of a liability order made by magistrates. It had become clear that the order had been made without jurisdiction.
Held: The order must be set aside. The court had no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Child Support, Magistrates

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228911

Harrison, Regina (on the Application Of) v Flintshire Magistrates’ Court: Admn 13 Oct 2004

The defendant had been convicted of speeding. At the time the road was thought to be subject to the 30 mph limit but was in fact subject only to the national speed limit. Her solicitors had delayed their application for judicial review.
Held: ‘Where an unjust sentence has been imposed upon a claimant, then, notwithstanding the very long period of delay that has elapsed since she learnt about it, it would, in my view, be unjust to deprive her of relief on that ground alone. ‘ She would however have still been subject to prosecution for traveling in excess of the national speed limit. The sentence was quashed and the matter remitted to the magistrates for recitification and re-sentence.

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2456 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 81(1) 89(1), Magistrates Courts Act 1980 142(1)

Road Traffic, Magistrates

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.226905

Regina v Acton Youth Court ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 10 May 2000

The youth court had made an order that the victim could give evidence in-chief by video recording and the remainder of her evidence by television link. When the case came to trial before a differently constituted bench the defendant successfully applied to have the order of the first bench reversed. The Director of Public Prosecutions now applied to quash that decision, submitting that it was a decision which no reasonable bench could make and that it was inappropriate to set aside the original order. The defendant argued that a decision of the ECHR was a new circumstance.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The ECHR decision was not a new circumstance. Laws LJ said: ‘It is necessary for the efficacious administration of justice to take a strict approach to the power of a lower court to revisit and revoke an order earlier made by itself. Clearly there must be some power to do so in the interests of justice. It arises, as my Lord has indicated, where there is a change of circumstances. Plainly that must be a change of relevant circumstances.
I would expect that cases in which an earlier existing circumstance, not drawn to the attention of the Court at the first hearing, would justify the court in later overturning its first decision would be most infrequent.’

Judges:

Laws LJ

Citations:

[2000] 2 Crim LR 75

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – V v The United Kingdom; T v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Dec-1999
The claimant challenged to the power of the Secretary of State to set a tariff where the sentence was imposed pursuant to section 53(1). The setting of the tariff was found to be a sentencing exercise which failed to comply with Article 6(1) of the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Jones v South East Surrey Local Justice Area Admn 12-Mar-2010
The defendant sought judicial review of a decision of the magistrates to adjourn a case where, on the day before, a differently constitued bench had refused an adjournment requested by the prosecution. On the first occasion the prosecutor had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.226026

W, Regina (on the Application of) v Camberwell Youth Court and Another: Admn 10 Sep 2004

The defendant sought a Judicial review of the magistrates’ decision to adjourn case at request of prosecutor. The prosecutor had failed to comply with its disclosure obligations, and de-warned its witnesses before the date fixed for trial.
Held: The justices’ decision had been lawful. The defendant was unable to establish any prejudice to him in the adjournment beyond, which was not relevant, any lost opportunity to proceed without prosecution witnesses. To set such a decision aside the court would have to be faced with a decision which could not be supported or was irrational.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2211 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Abedare Justices ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions 1990
The court considered the circumstances when a superior court should consider an appeal against a magistrates court on an adjournment of a trial: ‘First, a decision as to whether or not proceedings should be adjourned is, as counsel for the defendant . .
Cited – F v Balham Youth Court Admn 24-Oct-2003
The defendant faced a charge of causing actual bodily harm to a 19 year-old. There was an eye witness, who was no doubt a friend of the complainant, aged 18. The defendant was 15. When first listed for trial neither prosecution witnesses attended on . .
Cited – Walden, Regina (on the Application of) v Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court Admn 19-Mar-2003
The defendant appealed a decision of the magistrates to adjourn his trial for a breathaliser offence when the Crown Prosecution Service had not warned officers to attend to give evidence. On this application, the CPS filed an acknowledgment, did not . .
Cited – Regina v Hereford Magistrates’ Court (ex parte Rowlands, Ingram); Regina v Harrow Youth Court (ex parte Prussia) Admn 10-Feb-1997
The power to adjourn a trial is conferred upon Justices by statute. The divisional court will intervene where defendants have been deprived of a fair opportunity to present their case. The decision whether to grant an adjournment is not a mechanical . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.218724

Hayes v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 2004

Absence of caution from form requesting information form driver.

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 277 (Admin)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Mawdesley and Yorke v Chief Constable of Cheshire Constabulary and Another Admn 31-Jul-2003
The two appellant drivers had been sent forms requiring them to identify the drivers of vehicles identified by speed cameras. They had replied providing the requested information, but the forms were unsigned. They resisted use of the forms as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Magistrates

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.224359

Director of Public Prosecutions, Regina (on the Application of) v Everest: Admn 24 May 2005

The defendant had lit a bonfire. The smoke left his garden and blew across the road. An accident occurred. The prosecution appealed dismissal of a charge against him on the ground that they sought an amended charge after closure of their case and it was now outside the six month limit.
Held: The appeal failed. The Magistrates had clearly had in mind and applied the Scunthorpe Justices test. They had a discretion, and had used it.

Judges:

Richards J

Citations:

(2005) 169 JP 345, [2005] EWHC 1124 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Highways Act 1980 161(2)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Scunthorpe Justices ex parte McPhee and Gallagher Admn 24-Feb-1998
The defendant faced a charge of robbery. More than six months after the alleged offence the prosecution sought to add alternate charges including one of common assault. The magistrates declined jurisdiction on the ground that, more than six months . .

Cited by:

Cited – Ashton , Regina v; Regina v Draz; Regina v O’Reilly CACD 5-Apr-2006
The court considered three appeals where there had been a procedural irregularity, and where the judge had taken some step to overcome that irregularity. In two cases the Crown Court judge had reconstituted himself as a district judge to correct a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.226106

Watson, Regina (on the Application of) v Dartford Magistrates’ Court: Admn 6 May 2005

The defendant faced road traffic summonses. On the last working day before the defendant’s trial the prosecution applied for an adjournment because two of their witnesses were unavailable. The application was refused. On the first day of the trial the prosecution repeated its application and this time it was successful.
Held: The magistrates had been in error in granting the adjournment since there was no change of circumstances. The magistrates had other ways of accepting the evidence. The matter should proceed subject to a prohibition on the admission of oral evidence from the two missing witnesses.

Judges:

Sedley LJ, Mitting J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 905 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Jones v South East Surrey Local Justice Area Admn 12-Mar-2010
The defendant sought judicial review of a decision of the magistrates to adjourn a case where, on the day before, a differently constitued bench had refused an adjournment requested by the prosecution. On the first occasion the prosecutor had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225188

Lloyd And Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 1 Mar 2005

Magistrates had committed the applicants to prison in their absence for non-payment of local taxes and fines.
Held: The proceedings infringed the claimants’ human rights in that they had been found guilty of wilful refusal or culpable neglect without having had an appropriate opportunity to respond. Legal aid had not been available for the proceedings at which they were committed to prison.
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 5-1 with regard to 26 applicants; No violation of Art. 5-1 with regard to one applicant; Violation of Art. 5-5 with regard to 26 applicants; No violation of Art. 5-5 with regard to one applicant; Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-c; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient (with regard to Art. 6); Non-pecuniary damage – financial award (with regard to Art. 5); Pecuniary damage – financial award (with regard to two applicants); Costs and expenses partial award.

Citations:

Times 10-Mar-2005, 47676/99, 29798/96, [2005] ECHR 144, [2005] ECHR 147, [2006] RA 329

Links:

Worldlii, Worldlii, Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Alfreton Justices, Ex Parte Gratton QBD 25-Nov-1993
The appellant community charge payer (under 21) appealed after being committed to prison for non payment of the tax. The magistrates had come to the conclusion that they could not consider attaching the applicant’s liability to pay the charge to his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Human Rights, Magistrates

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223799

Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Hooper: QBD 16 Feb 2005

The police applied to the court for a closure order in respect of premises they said were being used for the sale of Class A drugs. The tenant sought an adjournment, which was granted as were two later applications. On the last hearing, the police did not appear and the application was dismissed as out of time. The police appealed.
Held: To avoid a conflict, the police power to order closure under 2(6) of the 2003 Act had to be read so that s54 of the 1980 Act was not excluded. Nevertheless, s54 should not be allowed to undermine the statutory purpose of the application. Magistrates had power to adjourn an application but not beyond 14 days after the application was made. The fault in the Magistrates’ action was not in granting multiple adjournments, but in allowing adjournments beyond that period. The magistrates had taking into account matters nor relevant, and the decision was flawed.

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

Times 03-Mar-2005, [2005] EWHC 340 (Admin), [2005] 1 WLR 1995

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 2(6), Magistrates Courts Act 1980 54, European Convention on Human Rights 6

Citing:

Cited – 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
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 . .
Cited – Regina v Dudley Magistrates Court ex parte Hollis; Robert v Same Admn 25-Nov-1997
An award of costs is inevitable after a finding of statutory nuisance and such costs include cost of establishing the nuisance. ‘The wide discretion as to whether to grant an adjournment conferred by section 10 and section 54 of the Magistrates’ . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (Brian Turner) v Highbury Magistrates Court QBD 11-Oct-2005
The claimant had faced an application for a closure order on his premises for their use for unlawful drugs. The matter was adjourned twice at his request. On the third occasion he sought to rely upon the need for a closure order to be confirmed with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Magistrates, Human Rights

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223452

Chief Inspector Shields v Devenney: CANI 21 Jan 2005

Citations:

[2005] NICA 4

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Brentford Justices Ex parte Wong QBD 1981
The defendant had been involved in a traffic accident. Very shortly before the expiry of the six month time limit, the prosecutor issued a careless driving summons apparently in order to preserve the possibility of a prosecution without yet having . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222110

Moran v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 30 Jan 2002

The appellant had requested the magistrates to state a case as to why they had ruled against his submission that he had no case to answer. The established rule is that they do not have to give such reasons. He argued that the new Human Rights duties required such reasons to be given to allow a fair trial under article 8.
Held: The Act had not changed the situation. A summary trial is a particular procedure, and it was undesirable to require justices to give a detailed assessment of evidence and witnesses at the end of the prosecution case. ‘Having regard to all that authority, what then is the position in relation to a refusal by Magistrates to accede to a submission of no case to answer? In my judgment, even after 2nd October 2000 there is still no legal obligation on the Magistrates to give reasons for rejecting a submission of no case. It is now usual for us to give reasons following a finding on appeal, and that has been done in this case. If a defendant is concerned about the conduct or outcome of a summary trial, he has a number of procedural options. In particular, (1) an appeal by way of re-hearing in the Crown Court, (2) an appeal by this court by way of case stated, in which case the Justices may be required to explain in the case stated the route by which they reached a particular conclusion, or (3) in some circumstances on application for judicial review.’

Judges:

Maurice Kay J

Citations:

Times 06-Feb-2002, Gazette 15-Mar-2002, [2002] EWHC 89 (Admin)

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dacre Son and Hartley Ltd v North Yorkshire Trading Standards Admn 27-Oct-2004
The defendants appealed a conviction under the Act complaining of the adequacy of the evidence presented. A buyer had found dampness in a property. It was later remarketed by the defendant who asked if it suffered dampness. She was told it did not. . .
Cited – Hawkes v Director of Public Prosecutions CACD 2-Nov-2005
The defendant appealed her convictions for assaulting a police officer and obstructing him in the course of his duty. She had acted in an abusive manner, but there had been no violence.
Held: Whilst she might have been arrested on the basis . .
Cited – Hawkes, Regina (on the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 2-Nov-2005
The defendant appealed by way of case stated against her conviction for assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty. Her son was arrested in the early hours of the morning from her house. She followed him outside and sat in the police . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Human Rights

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.167568

H and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Southampton Youth Court: Admn 2 Dec 2004

The court considered the principles for sentencing for sexual assaults by youths and the decision of magistrates whether to decline jurisdiction. Leveson J: ‘That the position would be different for an older person is obvious. Had an adult behaved in this manner to a 13 year old boy, sexual gratification would have been an obvious motive and a substantial custodial sentence would indeed have been justified. An older teenager could also lose his liberty. In my judgment, however, 13 and 14 year olds behaving in this way to one of their school friends, while deeply reprehensible and demanding condemnation, do not come within that category, and certainly not at the level of a sentence approaching two years.’

Judges:

Leveson J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2912 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 24, Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 91(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Crown Prosecution Service (Redbridge Section), Regina (on the Application Of) v Redbridge Youth Court and Another Admn 8-Jun-2005
The CPS appealed the refusal of the respondent magistrates to decline jurisdiction to hear allegations against a youth.
Held: The magistrates had applied the wrong test, asking themselves whether a sentence substantially greater than two years . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220543

Barber v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 25 Oct 2004

The defendant appealed by case stated against his conviction for harassment. He was said to have played loud music late at night in contravention of a restraining order. He said that the prosecution had failed to prove the existence of the order. The magistrates argued that since that court had made the order, no certified copy was to be required.
Held: The defendant’s own admissions in interview amounted to admission of the existence of the order. Though the order had to be proved there was more than one way in which it could be proved. Such evidence had been provided.
The offence of being in breach of a restraining order under the Act is one of strict liability.

Judges:

Forbes J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2605 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Protection from Harassment Act 1997, Magistrates’ Courts Rules 1981

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates, Crime

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219530

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Duffy and Others: QBD 1 Mar 2002

The three defendants were stopped on their way to Malaga. Each carried andpound;7,000 or andpound;6,000. Their explanations were not accepted, and the money was seized under the Act. The magistrates ordered it to be returned, and Customs appealed.
Held: It was not proper to aggregate the sums under the Act so as to reach a total greater than andpound;10,000 as required under the section. The magistrates should examine the cash under s 42(1)(a), and then look at what was the consignment. If the cash as a whole was one consignment with one source, then it did not matter how many people were carrying it.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy and Mr Justice Forbes

Citations:

Times 04-Apr-2002

Statutes:

Drug Trafficking Act 1994 42(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise, Magistrates

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.168120

Regina v Warrington Crown Court Chief Constable of Cheshire Constabulary, Ex Parte RBNB (A Company): HL 20 Jun 2002

The company refused to disclose the identity of its shareholders, when it applied for an alcohol license. The magistrates refused a licence it on the basis that the information was needed to assess the fitness of the company to hold the licence. The Crown Court refused the licence, but it was then granted on appeal. The police appealed.
Held: The shares were held through companies in such a way that the identity of the shareholders was not publicly ascertainable, and the court could not be sure that those controlling the company were appropriate. The appeal was refused. There was no extraneous reason to doubt the fitness of the proposed licensee. The term ‘a fit and proper person’ is to be construed according to the context. Questions about the eventual ownership of the owner were a distraction from the proposed licensee’s own fitness.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Mustill, Lord Hutton, Lord Millett and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

Citations:

Times 21-Jun-2002, Times 01-Aug-2002, [2002] UKHL 24, (2003) 167 JPN 31, [2002] BCC 697, [2002] NPC 85, [2002] 1 WLR 1954, [2002] 4 All ER 131, (2003) 167 JP 6

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Company, Licensing, Magistrates

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.174014

Regina v Newham Justices, ex parte Hunt etc: CA 1976

The court asked whether proceedings under s99 were civil or criminal.
Held: ‘the proper interpretation of this section [section 99] leads to the conclusion that the individual can by information invoke section 94′ The offence was under s94 initiated by complaint under s99. Section 99 enabled an individual to bring proceedings by information in a magistrates’ court and thereby invoke against a local authority the penal provisions of section 94 and, secondly, that it was not a necessary preliminary to those proceedings that an abatement notice should be served.

Citations:

[1976] 1 All ER 839, [1976] 1 WLR 420

Statutes:

Public Health Act 1936 94 99

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Followed – Regina v Inner London Crown Court ex parte Bentham QBD 1989
The defendant sought legal aid to defend an action to abate a statutory nuisance under the 1936 Act.
Held: Such an action was criminal in nature. The action had been brought under section 99, but the imposition of a penalty under s94 was a . .
Cited – Regina v Liverpool Crown Court, Ex Parte Cooke QBD 3-Apr-1996
Complaint was made against the council for creating a statutory nuisance under the 1990 Act. The tenant sought compensation under the 1973 Act. The council appealed an award of andpound;3,000 compensation.
Held: Compensation should be awarded . .
Approved – Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council v Bujok HL 1990
An offence arose under the 1936 Act when a complaint was brought by an aggrieved person. A person was entitled to make a complaint under section 94 without first serving an abatement notice. . .
Cited – Issa (Suing By her Next Friend and Father Issa) and Issa (Suing By her Next Friend and Father Issa) v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Hackney CA 19-Nov-1996
A Local Authority found guilty of a statutory nuisance is not thereby liable for a civil damages suit. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Nuisance

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.221522

McC v Mullan; In re McC (A Minor): HL 1984

A statutory condition precluded magistrates from making the order they did unless a juvenile offender who was not legally represented had been refused legal aid, or had been informed of his right to apply for it but had refused or neglected to do so. These conditions had not been met and so the magistrates had no power to make the order. The conditions directly affected the jurisdiction to make the order.
Lord Bridge of Harwich said: ‘It is, of course, clear that the holder of any judicial office who acts in bad faith, doing what he knows he has no power to do, is liable in damages. If the Lord Chief Justice himself, on the acquittal of a defendant charged before him with a criminal offence, were to say: ‘That is a perverse verdict’, and thereupon proceed to pass a sentence of imprisonment, he could be sued for trespass. But, as Lord Esher MR said in Anderson v Gorrie: ‘the question arises whether there can be an action against a judge of a court of record for doing something within his jurisdiction, but doing it maliciously and contrary to good faith. By the common law of England it is the law that no such action will lie.’
and ‘The principle underlying this rule is clear. If one judge in a thousand acts dishonestly within his jurisdiction to the detriment of a party before him, it is less harmful to the health of society to leave that party without a remedy than that nine hundred and ninety nine honest judges should be harassed by vexatious litigation alleging malice in the exercise of their proper jurisdiction.’

Judges:

Lord Bridge of Harwich

Citations:

[1985] AC 528, [1984] 3 All ER 908, [1984] 3 WLR 1227, (1984) 81 Cr App R 54

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Benham v United Kingdom ECHR 8-Feb-1995
Legal Aid was wrongfully refused where a tax or fine defaulter was liable to imprisonment, and the lack of a proper means enquiry, made imprisonment of poll tax defaulter unlawful. A poll tax defaulter had been wrongly committed to prison by . .
Cited – Motorola Credit Corporation v Uzan and others (No 2) CA 12-Jun-2003
World-wide freezing orders had been made under the 1982 Act. The defendants were members of a Turkish family with substantial business interests in the telecommunications industry. In breach of orders made in the US some defendants had sought to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.183517

Osbourne v Kendrick: CA 25 Apr 2001

The court was asked whether a compensation order made in criminal proceedings can only be enforced by the magistrates’ court responsible for administering such an order or whether the order can also be enforced by the beneficiary of it.

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 690

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200995

Regina on the Application of Keating v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council: QBD 22 Jul 2004

Refusal of magistrates to make order prohibiting disclosure of child’s name on application for anti-social behaviour order.

Judges:

Mr Justice Harrison

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1933 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children and Young Persons Act 1933 39, Crime and Disorder Act 1998 1D

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates, Children

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200314

London Borough of Newham, Regina (on the Application of) v Stratford Magistrates’ Court: Admn 12 Oct 2004

Judges:

Davis J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2506 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Brentford Justices ex parte Catlin 1975
A decision by magistrates whether to issue a summons pursuant to information laid involves the exercise of a judicial function, and is not merely administrative.
A summons (or warrant) is merely machinery for giving a defendant notice of the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Craik, Chief Constable of Northumbria Police, Regina (on The Application of) v Newcastle Upon Tyne Magistrates’ Court Admn 30-Apr-2010
The claimant a retired Chief Constable sought judicial review of a decision to commit him for trial on a charge of unlawful imprisonment. The suspect and now prosecutor had been arrested and held in custody, but without the necessary timely review . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Consumer, Magistrates

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.219266

Brown v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 2 Apr 2019

The defendant argued that the written charge in the case had not been issued within the necessary time period. He said that it had not been issued until it was in some way publicly available. The respondent argued that the requirement was satisfied at the point where the relevant prosecutor determined to issue it. The defendant now appealed.
Held: Thought the magistrates had made one, error, the notice was issued in time, and the appeal failed. The new system was not to be read to recreate the old one. However, a charge was issued ‘only when the document comprising the written charge is completed, with all relevant details and in the form needed for service.’

Judges:

Irwin LJ, Stuart-Smith J

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 798 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 127(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.635204

Regina (Crown Prosecution Service, Greater Manchester) v Bolton Justices: QBD 31 Oct 2003

The magistrates had been taking a deposition, and ordered police officers to be excluded from court.
Held: The witness sought not to have to answer questions on the ground that he would be incriminated by his answers. Magistrates should not accept a claim for privilege without investigation. It was insufficient also to accept that this was claimed solely on the grounds of legal advice. The proceedings of taking the deposition were in open court, and the exclusion of those charged with investigating crime was an irregularity.

Judges:

Kennedy LJ, Royce J

Citations:

Times 07-Nov-2003, [2003] EWHC 2697 (Admin), [2004] 1 WLR 835

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Crime and Disorder Act 1998 Sch3 P-4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Evidence, Magistrates, Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.190141

Ward v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Epsom and St Helier NHS Trust: CA 30 Jul 2003

The claimant sought damages for the circumstances of her having been taken into custody. A magistrate had issued a warrant to require her to be removed to a place of safety. The warrant named a social worker and doctor to accompany the officer. The warrant was executed but the social worker and doctor were not those named.
Held: Magistrates could issue a warrant without naming the social worker or doctor who would be required under the section to accompany the police officer. If so, such workers could be selected as appropriate. The addition of the names to the warrant was to be read as a restriction on the way the warrant was to be executed, and the officer could not assume that the warrant would have been issued without names or with alternative names. The warrant itself was valid, but the mode of execution was not.

Judges:

Lord Justice Schiemann Lord Justice Latham

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1152, Times 02-Sep-2003, Gazette 02-Oct-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983 135(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Ward v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and others HL 5-May-2005
The claimant had been taken under warrant to a mental hospital, but was found not to be suffering any mental illness. She complained that the arrest was unlawful, since the police officer had not been accompanied by the people named on the warrant. . .

Cited by:

Appeal From – Ward v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and others HL 5-May-2005
The claimant had been taken under warrant to a mental hospital, but was found not to be suffering any mental illness. She complained that the arrest was unlawful, since the police officer had not been accompanied by the people named on the warrant. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Magistrates, Police

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.185243

Clark (Procurator Fiscal, Kirkcaldy) v Kelly: PC 11 Feb 2003

PC (The High Court of Justiciary) The minuter challenged the role of the legal adviser to the district courts in Scotland, and as to his independence.
Held: The legal adviser was not subject to the same system of appointments as the justices. However the system provided for a right of appeal (section 175) on questions of law, which would cover the role played by the adviser, and also the wider power under section 193 would allow general redress, in circumstances involving a possible miscarriage of justice. The adviser should make known to the parties, the legal advice he had given in private, and opportunity for comment allowed.

Judges:

Bingham of Cornhill, Hoffmann, Hope of Craighead, Hutton, Rodger of Earsferry LL

Citations:

Times 12-Feb-2003, [2003] UKPC 14, Gazette 01-May-2003, [2003] UKPC D1, [2003] UKHRR 1167, [2003] 1 All ER 1106, [2003] 2 WLR 1586, 2003 SCCR 194, 2003 GWD 7-164, [2003] HRLR 17, 2003 SC (PC) 77, [2004] 1 AC 681, 14 BHRC 369, 2003 SLT 308

Links:

PC, Bailii, PC

Statutes:

Scotland Act 1998 Sch 6 33, Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 175 193, European Convention on Human Rights ^.1

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Cited – Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
Cited – Bryan v The United Kingdom ECHR 22-Nov-1995
Bryan was a farmer at Warrington in Cheshire. He built two brick buildings on land in a conservation area without planning permission and the planning authority served an enforcement notice for their demolition. He appealed on grounds (a) (that . .
Cited – Albert And Le Compte v Belgium ECHR 10-Feb-1983
Hudoc Violation of Art. 6-1; Just satisfaction reserved . .

Cited by:

Cited – Watson v General Medical Council Admn 26-Aug-2005
The claimant said that the procedure of the fitness to practice panel was unfair in that representations had been accepted by the panel from an expert witness without him having an opportunity to challenge or comment on that evidence.
Held: . .
Cited – The British Medical Association, Regina (on the Application of) v The General Medical Council and Another Admn 4-May-2016
The BMA sought to challenge the validity of the rules governing the procedure of Fitness to Practice panels. In particular the BMA challenged the new absence of a requirement that the panel’s legal advice and assistance be available to the parties. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.179139

Regina (Crown Prosecution Service) v Chorley Justices: Admn 9 Oct 2002

The prosecution had requested the magistrates to impose on the defendant as a condition of his bail, a requirement that when so requested by a police officer checking that he was at home and otherwise complying with the bail condition, he should come to door.
Held: The ‘doorstep’ condition was validly imposed. The Act gave the magistrates the power to impose such conditions as appeared to them to be necessary to secure the defendant’s appearance at court. The defendant’s article 5 and 8 rights were engaged, the procedure was clear, accessible, and proportionate.

Judges:

Latham, McCombe JJ

Citations:

Times 22-Oct-2002, Gazette 07-Nov-2002, [2002] EWHC 2162 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Bail Act 1976 3(6), European Convention on Human Rights 5 8

Criminal Practice, Magistrates, Human Rights

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.177479

Davenport v Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 17 Mar 1995

The court was concerned with the refusal of the magistrates to make a compensation order after a plea of guilty to a statutory nuisance. The magistrates had also refused to award costs of the adjourned hearing at which compensation had been sought.
Held: The court declined to interfere with the refusal of the compensation, but the costs of that hearing were properly incurred. ‘Under section 82(12)…the Justices are bound to make a costs order in favour of any complainant, once it is found that a statutory nuisance existed at the date of the making of the complaint. The only limit on that is that the award is to compensate the complainant only for expenses properly incurred. That would seem to be intended to ensure that the amount to be paid by a defendant is not increased by any improper act or omission on the part of a complainant or his professional representatives . ‘

Judges:

Keene J

Citations:

Unreported, 17 March 1995, [1995] 28 HLR 504

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Followed – Botross v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council QBD 7-Nov-1994
Statutory nuisance proceedings are in their nature criminal proceedings, and compensation may be awarded by the court. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Liverpool Crown Court, Ex Parte Cooke QBD 3-Apr-1996
Complaint was made against the council for creating a statutory nuisance under the 1990 Act. The tenant sought compensation under the 1973 Act. The council appealed an award of andpound;3,000 compensation.
Held: Compensation should be awarded . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Magistrates

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.221520

W, Regina (on the Application of) v Thetford Youth Justices and Another: Admn 25 Jun 2002

Judges:

Sedley LJ, Gage J

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 1252 (Admin), [2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 67, [2002] Crim LR 681, 166 JP 453, (2002) 166 JP 453

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (C and Another) v Sheffield Youth Court; Regina (N) v Sheffield Youth Court QBD 23-Jan-2003
In each case, youths had been committed to the Crown Court for trial but complained that the Youth Court should have dealt with the cases, and sought judicial review of the Youth Court decision.
Held: The test for a review of a decision of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.175111

Regina v Pope (Criminal): HL 20 Jun 2002

The Magistrates committed the defendant to the Crown Court for sentence. In addition to other sentences the Crown Court imposed a confiscation order. The defendant succeeded in an appeal to the Court of Appeal, and the Crown now appealed.
Held: The Crown Court had full power to make such an order. There had been no hiatus in its powers between 1995 and 1998. The power had always been available under section 42 of the 1973 Act.

Judges:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Millett and Lord Scott of Foscote

Citations:

Gazette 08-Aug-2002, [2002] UKHL 26, [2002] 3 All ER 889, [2002] 2 Cr App Rep 34, [2002] 1 WLR 1966, [2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 63

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 38, Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 42, Criminal Justice Act 1988 71

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, Magistrates

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174013

Tevlin v Medway Magistrates’ Court: Admn 11 May 2012

Application for judicial review of a decision of the Medway Magistrates’ Court, to proceed with a trial of the claimant in his absence despite the provision of medical evidence.

Judges:

Richards LJ, Treacy J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1403 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.459831

Regina (Kashamu) v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another; Regina (Kashamu) v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court; Regina (Makhlulif and Another) v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court: QBD 23 Nov 2001

Where a magistrates’ court heard an application for extradition, it was within its proper ambit to assess the lawfulness of the detention of the suspect in the light of the Human Rights Convention, but not to stray onto issues which were only for the eventual court of trial to hear. Article 5 expressly required the lawfulness of a person’s detention to be determined speedily by a court. The Magistrates’ Court was the obvious and proper forum for this question. Existing case law which said that it was not for the Magistrates to decide whether the procedure as a whole was an abuse did not restrict this Human Rights power.

Judges:

Lord Justice Rose and Mr Justice Pitchford

Citations:

Times 12-Dec-2001, Gazette 01-Feb-2002, [2001] EWHC 980 (Admin), [2001] EWHC Admin 980, [2002] QB 887

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989 11(3) Sch1 Para 6(1), European Convention on Human Rights 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Atkinson v Government of the United States HL 1969
The House heard an appeal from the magistrates’ refusal to commit the accused in the course of extradition proceedings.
Held: There is no abuse of process jurisdiction in extradition proceedings. There is no power to state a case in relation . .
Cited – Regina v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex parte Sinclair; Sinclair v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1991
The applicant had left the USA after conviction, but before his prison term commenced, and a warrant issued. Nine years later he was arrested in the UK, and extradition sought. He said that the extradition was time-barred under the Order. The . .
Cited – In Re Schmidt HL 1-Jul-1994
The appellant sought to persuade the House that in extradition proceedings the courts enjoyed a similar jurisdiction to that exercised in Bennett.
Held: The appeal failed. The High Court has no inherent power to intervene in extradition . .
Cited – Regina v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, ex Parte Bennett (No 1) HL 24-Jun-1993
The defendant had been brought to the UK in a manner which was in breach of extradition law. He had, in effect, been kidnapped by the authorities.
Held: The High Court may look at how an accused person was brought within the jurisdiction when . .

Cited by:

Cited – Raissi, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 14-Feb-2008
The claimant appealed against refusal of his request for judicial review of the defendant’s decision not to award him damages after his wrongful arrest and detention after he was wrongly suspected of involvement in terrorism. He had been discharged . .
Cited – Lukaszewski v The District Court In Torun, Poland SC 23-May-2012
Three of the appellants were Polish citizens resisting European Arrest Warrants. A fourth (H), a British citizen, faced extradition to the USA. An order for the extradition of eachhad been made, and acting under advice each filed a notice of appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Human Rights, Magistrates

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167014

Regina v Teesside Magistrates’ Court ex parte Ellison: QBD 20 Feb 2001

The power and duty to deal with a defendant brought before the magistrates on an accusation of breach of the terms of his bail lay with the magistrates, and even where the bail had been set by the crown court and he was due to appear in the Crown Court within a few days, they had to deal with the matter on the defendant being brought before them. They have no power to commit the defendant to the Crown Court for that court to deal with him.

Citations:

Times 20-Feb-2001

Statutes:

Bail Act 1976 7(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88688

Regina v Neath and Port Talbot Justices, ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 2 Mar 2000

The magistrates had refused an adjournment of a trial after the non-attendance of the complainant. The prosecution offered no evidence, and the charge was dismissed. The prosecutor applied for judicial review, but the case came on only 16 months afterwards. The court held that several factors were to be considered, including the seriousness of the charge, the evidence and effect of any delay upon it, the defendant’s contribution if any to the delay, and any justifiable feeling of aggrievement for the complainant.

Citations:

Times 15-Mar-2000, Gazette 02-Mar-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88565

Regina v North East Essex Justices, ex parte Lloyd: QBD 7 Dec 2000

The magistrates had full power to commit a defendant to the Crown Court for sentence where they wanted to fine him, but considered that their powers to impose a fine were too limited. When doing so, they should invite representation on the proposal, and convey their views to the Crown Court.

Citations:

Gazette 07-Dec-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88571

Regina v Croydon Justices, ex parte W H Smith Ltd: QBD 22 Nov 2000

The power to institute proceedings for a breach of the Act lay in the inspector, and he could not delegate it. The Act was explicit in its requirements as to who could issue proceedings. The informations were not laid when the inspector requested a local authority solicitor to issue them, and there was nothing to justify any inference of a power to delegate.

Citations:

Gazette 30-Nov-2000, Times 22-Nov-2000

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 38

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health and Safety, Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88431

Regina v Colchester Justices Ex Parte Abbott: QBD 13 Mar 2001

When calculating the value of damage for the purpose of deciding whether an allegation of criminal damage could be referred to the Crown Court, the damage was the replacement value and not the consequential losses. An activist was accused of damaging genetically engineered crops. The replacement value was andpound;750, but the consequential losses amounted to over andpound;5000. It was triable only at the Magistrates Court.

Citations:

Times 13-Mar-2001, Gazette 12-Apr-2001

Statutes:

Criminal Damage Act 1971, Magistrates Courts Act 1980 22

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates, Crime

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88416

Padovani v Italy: ECHR 26 Feb 1993

Hudoc The Court considered the compatibility with Article 6(1) of a magistrate’s dual function of investigation and judgment.
Held: The summary investigative measures carried out by the magistrate in the particular case did not give rise to an objectively justified fear that he lacked impartiality when acting thereafter as judge in the case.

Citations:

[1993] ECHR 12, 13396/87

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6(1)

Cited by:

Cited – Haase, Regina (on the Application of) v Independent Adjudicator and Another CA 14-Oct-2008
The appellant complained that as a prisoner he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for refusing to co-operate with drugs tests. He said that he had not been informed that there would be a penalty if he did not comply. He now complained that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165242

Atkinson v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 12 May 2004

The court considered how to apply the time limits in the section. There was a system for automatic electronic communication between the police and the court office. The six month time limit expired on the 16th December. The documents served on the defendant showed an ‘information date’ of 10th December, but the summons was dated the 9th January. It transpired that the information date referred to the first date upon which any data relating to the case were entered on the computer. That data may only have been the bare bones of the incident in question for example the offence and the date and not sufficient to amount to an information. The entry could then have been amended at any time thereafter without any record being made of such amendment. Once the police were satisfied that the information was complete, the entry would have been ‘validated’. It was only when the details had been ‘validated’ that the computer at the court would generate the summons. The defendant argued for abuse of process.
Held: The issue was really one of jurisdiction. It was for the prosecutor to prove compliance,
Auld LJ said: ‘The data giving rise to the printing of the summons in the magistrates’ court shortly after the effluxion of the time limit may or may not have been in sufficient form at the initial data entry date or over the few days thereafter before the effluxion of that limit.’ and ‘It may be that the computer can be programmed so as to make readily retrievable any entries and their dates between the initial entry date and that of printing of the summons. Or it may be that it could be programmed so that there is no communication of entries on the police system to the magistrates’ court terminals until validation, so that the date of validation would patently be the date of the laying of the information before the magistrates.’

Judges:

Auld LJ

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1457 (Admin), [2005] 1 WLR 96

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts Act 1980 127

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Lloyd v Young Admn 1963
There had been doubt on the face of the summons as to the date of the laying of the information.
Held: The court concluded on the evidence that the Justices were entitled to dismiss the information because of the doubts of the date. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Rockall v Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 22-Mar-2007
The defendant appealed against his conviction under the Act, saying that the proceedings had been issued late. The issue was the calculation of the date when proceedings were begun.
Held: There was no justification for reading the wording of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.198518

Regina (Denny) v Acton Youth Court: Admn 21 Apr 2004

The defendant had been committed by the Youth Court to the magistrates court for sentence for attempted robbery. At the time of the offence he had been 17, but on conviction he had attained 18. The district judge had declared that he had no jurisdiction.
Held: The offence could only be tried in the Crown court, and therefore the magistrates could only remit him to the crown court for sentence for an indictable only offence..

Judges:

Maurice Kay LJ, Crane J

Citations:

Times 03-Jun-2004, [2004] EWHC 948 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Powers of Criminal Court (Sentencing) Act 2000 9(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.199324

Burwell v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 1 May 2009

The defendant appealed against the decision of the Magistrates to accept a prosecutor’s certificate as to compliance with time limits for commencing the prosecution. He argued that the police had all the evidence in their possession at an earlier point.

Judges:

Keene LJ, Roderick Evans J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1069 (Admin), (2009) 173 JP 351

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Computer Misuse Act 1990 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Capital Bank Ad v Bulgaria ECHR 24-Nov-2005
The courts of Bulgaria had decided that, on a winding-up petition, the question of the company’s insolvency was determined by a decision of the Central Bank of Bulgaria to revoke the company’s banking licence because it was insolvent. It had been . .

Cited by:

Cited – Lamont-Perkins v Royal Society for The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals (RSPCA) Admn 24-Apr-2012
The defendant had been convicted of animal cruelty. She appealed to the Crown Court, and now appealed against rulings made by the judge as to the time limits for a prosecution under the 2006 Act in the Magistrates Court. She said that the RSPCA . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.346234

McCubbin, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 12 Oct 2004

The defendant appealed by way of case stated against the decision of the magistrates to convict him of assault.
Held: No point of law had been raised. The reasons given were adequate. In truth this was a challenge on the facts, and the defendant should have appealed to the Crown Court. Appeal dismissed.

Judges:

Davis J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2504 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Harrow Crown Court Ex Parte Dave QBD 20-Oct-1993
A Crown Court when sitting as an appellate court must give reasons for its decision. The court reviewed earlier decisions, and concluded that where a court is going to reject expert evidence it must give proper reasons: ‘The appellant was entitled . .
Cited – Evans v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 2001
The defendant appealed saying that the magistrates in convicting him had given the impression that they had applied a lower standard of proof than was required.
Held: Even though there was no basis to find that the magistrates had in fact . .

Cited by:

Distinguished – Ukpabi v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 18-Apr-2008
Appeal against conviction for assaulting police constables in the execution of their duty.
Held: The magistrates had given the impression that in convicting him they were not fully convinced of the evidence against him, and that therefore a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.219269

Regina v Tameside Magistrates Court and Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Coleman and Davenport: CA 22 Jul 1998

Allegations of malicious prosecution against local authorities for seeking and obtaining wrongful orders committing the claimants to prison for non-payment of Community Charge.

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 1268

Statutes:

Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations 1989

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates, Local Government, Torts – Other

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.144747

Regina (C and Another) v Sheffield Youth Court; Regina (N) v Sheffield Youth Court: QBD 23 Jan 2003

In each case, youths had been committed to the Crown Court for trial but complained that the Youth Court should have dealt with the cases, and sought judicial review of the Youth Court decision.
Held: The test for a review of a decision of the Youth Court is whether that decision was wrong. The court is reviewing the decision, not acting as an appellate court. Here, the statute required the youth court to commit to the crown court where the stated conditions were satisfied. Those conditions were that the offence was listed in the 2000 Act, and that the powers under subsection (3) of the section would arise. The Youth Court must consider the sentencing powers of the Crown Court, and guidance for their use.

Judges:

Stanley Burton J

Citations:

Times 03-Feb-2003

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts Act 1980 24(1), Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 91(3) 165(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – W, Regina (on the Application of) v Thetford Youth Justices and Another Admn 25-Jun-2002
. .
Cited – Regina (W) v Southampton Youth Court Admn 2002
The court discussed the principles applicable when sentencing very young offenders: ‘The simple principle underlying the current legislation for sentencing very young offenders is that, generally speaking, first-time offenders aged 13 and 14, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.178850

Regina on the Application of Hussain v Derby Magistrates’ Court and Lord Chancellor’s Department: Admn 3 Jul 2001

The defendant had been brought before the magistrates after being arrested for breach of bail conditions. He now challenged the adjournment of the case to a different bench, and whether such a bench had power to punish him.
Held: Sections 7(4) and 7(5) of the 1976 Act created a power to stand down a case to a different bench provided it was for determination on the same day.

Judges:

Brooke LJ, Harrison J

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 507, [2001] All ER (D) 26, [2001] 1 WLR 245

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Bail Act 1976 7(4) 7(5) 7(6)

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140343

Christopher James Jolly v Director of Public Prosections: Admn 31 Mar 2000

At trial in the magistrates court, the prosecution had failed to bring evidence that the computer used to analyse the defendant’s breath alcohol was in proper working condition. The defendant submitted no case to answer, and the magistrates allowed the prosecutor to re-open his case to put the evidence. The defendant appealed.
Held: The appeal was refused. The court reviewed the cases describing when a prosecutor might be allowed to re-open his case, and this case fell within the rules.
Kennedy LJ: ‘In my judgment any trial court must recognise that it is the duty of the prosecution to call its evidence before closing its case. But it is now beyond argument that there is a general discretion to permit the calling of evidence at a later stage, which extends in a Magistrates’ Court up to the time when the Bench retires.’

Judges:

Kennedy LJ, Butterfield J

Citations:

[2000] EWHC Admin 316

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Pilcher 1974
The prosecutor had closed his case, and the defendant had presented some evidence. It became clear that the prosecutor had failed to present evidence on one element, and the defendant appealed his conviction after the prosecutor had been allowed to . .
Cited – Regina v Tate CACD 1977
At the close of a prosecution case for driving with excess alcohol, the appellant stated that he would not give or call evidence. He then submitted that the jury should be directed to consider only the admissible evidence of the analyst called who . .
Cited – Regina v Sheppard HL 1993
Where the prosecutor wishes to rely on evidence set out in a document produced by a computer, there must be affirmative evidence as to the computer’s reliability in accordance with the requirements of Section 69. It can be either oral evidence or a . .
Cited – Morris v Matthews CA 1981
On a prosecution for theft, the prosecution failed to read a statement from the owner of the property, which statement had been served on the defence pursuant to Section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. It was submitted that there was no case to . .
Cited – MacDonald v Skelt QBD 1985
At the close of the prosecution case, it was submitted that the defendant had no case to answer because there was insufficient evidence that the blood specimen taken from him and that analysed by the Scientific Officer were the same. The Justices . .
Cited – James v South Glamorgan County Council 1992
On trial of a charge of supplying a motor vehicle in an un-roadworthy condition, a prosecution witness (the person to whom the vehicle was supplied) had difficulty in locating the Court House. Before he arrived, the prosecution had closed its case, . .
Cited – Regina v Vincent Munnery CACD 1992
On a charge of burglary, the prosecution had not brought evidence that the appellant was one of those who carried cartons out of Liberty’s department store. The court allowed the prosecutor to re-open his case to present that evidence.
Held: . .
Cited – Regina v Francis CACD 1990
The prosecution had omitted to bring evidence that the person standing at No.20 on an identification parade was the appellant. The defence complained that the prosecutor had been allowed to re-open his case.
Held: ‘The discretion of the judge . .
Cited – Antonio Leeson v Haringey Justices and Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 26-Jul-1999
The prosecutor on a charge of driving with excess alcohol had failed to adduce evidence as to the calibration of the intoximeter. The magistrates allowed him to re-open his case. The defendant appealed.
Held: The appeal was dismissed: ‘If the . .
Cited – Regina v Pydar Justices Ex Parte Foster QBD 23-May-1995
There was a case to answer on an OPL charge despite the computer readout not being handed to Justices. It was in evidence. Evidence referred to but not challenged by the defendant can be relied upon by Justices in making their decision. The court . .
Cited – Regina v Aylesbury Crown Court ex parte Lait Admn 13-Mar-1998
The defendant sought judicial review of the crown court’s decision to allow the prosecutor to re-open his case even after defence counsel had begun his summing up.
Held: The court ‘did step outside the reasonable bounds of its discretion in . .

Cited by:

Cited – Tuck v Vehicle Inspectorate Admn 24-Mar-2004
The defendant appealed a conviction for exceeding the gross permitted weight on a goods vehicle. The magistrates having heard the case, the defendant submitted there was no case to answer, the prosecution having failed to bring evidence as to the . .
Cited – Traves, Regina (on the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 30-Jun-2005
The defendant appealed conviction involving allegations that he was driving. He was sat at the wheel of a vehicle being towed by means of a rigid steel bar. He denied that he was driving, but had both steered and braked.
Held: The magistrates . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Evidence

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140130