Cheema and Others v Nottingham and Newark Magistrates Court and Another: Admn 11 Dec 2013

The claimants challenged the issue and implementation of a search warrant,and sought the return of items seized. The police acknowledged that the search had been unlawful, but sought to retain the materials seized. The warrant had been presented as a specified premises warrant, but should have been an ‘all premises’ warrant.

Treacy LJ, King J
[2013] EWHC 3790 (Admin)
Bailii
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 8
England and Wales

Police, Magistrates

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518908

Lee and Others v Solihull Magistrates Court and Another: Admn 5 Dec 2013

The claimant challenged search warrants issued by the respondents, on the grounds first that the warrants were too wide in the description of the property which might be seized, that the description of property sought in the warrant was so wide that the Magistrates could not have been satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for believing that such material was likely to be relevant evidence, and that the applicants for the warrant, Customs and Excise officers were seriously at fault in the failure to disclose relative materials to the request for the warrant.
Held: ‘the entry, search and seizure at both sets of premises was unlawful. The purpose of the mandatory requirement imposed by Section 15(6)(b) is to enable anyone interested in the execution of a warrant to know what are the limits of the power of search or seizure which is being granted. This is necessary so that such a person can be put in a position to enable him or her to challenge the lawfulness of the seizure of any particular item. Accordingly, it is now well established that the terms of the warrant must be precise and intelligible by reference exclusively to its own terms and not by reference to any other material.’
and ‘The execution of a search warrant at private or business premises is a significant invasion upon individual liberty. Parliament has rightly required that certain safeguards be put in place. Those safeguards are contained in Sections 15 and 16 of PACE 1984, and Section 15(1) specifically provides that a failure to observe the requirements of those sections will render the entry and search unlawful. I have no doubt that that is the case here.
It is to be observed that a failure or failures of compliance with the provisions of Section 15 or Section 16 do not render the warrant itself unlawful, but rather the entry on or search of premises.’
Grond 2 was not made out and ground 3 not purused.

Treacy LJ, King J
[2013] EWHC 3779 (Admin)
Bailii
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 8(1)(c) 15
Citing:
CitedGlenn and Co (Essex) Ltd), Regina (on The Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs Admn 18-Jun-2010
The company objected to the search of its offices and removal by the defendant of its computers, the officers having entered without any warrant purporting to use powers under the 1989 Act.
Held: The request for judicial review failed. The . .
CitedBurgin and Purcell v Commission of Police for The Metropolis and Others Admn 13-Jul-2011
The applicants renewed the applications for leave to bring judicial review of decisions to seek and to issue search warrants, and later decisions to arrest them.
Held: When considering the validity of a search warrant the warrant as a whole . .
CitedAnand, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs Admn 9-Oct-2012
The claimant challenged the lawfulness of a search warrant issued for the respondent. The company had claimed Film Tax Relief, but the revenue had been unable to trace a supplier, and believed the invoice to be bogus.
Held: The warrants wer . .
CitedHoque and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs Admn 13-Mar-2013
The claimant sought judicial review of warrants issued at the request of the respondent, saying that they failed to comply with the requirements of section 15, and that no magistrate could reasonably have been satisfied that section 8 had been . .
CitedVan Der Pijl and Another v The Crown Court At Kingston Admn 21-Dec-2012
The claimants challenged search warrants and the seizure of materials under the warrants.
Held: The Court emphasised the need for precision within the warrant itself. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Taxes Management

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518792

Sykes v Crown Prosecution Service (Manchester): Admn 16 Oct 2013

The defendant appealed against his conviction for obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty, saying that there had been no evidence that at the time of the events, the officer was acting in the lawful execution of his duty. He purported to be executing a search warrant, but the officer had no direct knowledge of the warrant.
Held: Evidence of the mere belief of the existence of a warrant, by an officer who was not involved in making the application for the warrant, who has not seen the warrant and who has no personal knowledge of the details of the warrant is not actual or sufficient evidence of the existence of the warrant itself. However the evidence here went beyond that. Having entered under orders as one amongst a group of officers. There was sufficient evidence before the magistrate for them properly to infer in the absence of any countervailing evidence that there was an existence, a valid and effective warrant and therefore the officer in question was at all material times acting in the lawful execution of his duty.

Haddon-Cave J
[2013] EWHC 3600 (Admin)
Bailii
Police Act 1996 89(2)
Citing:
CitedRegina v Galbraith CCA 1981
Rejection of Submission of No Case to Answer
The defendant had faced a charge of affray. The court having rejected his submission of having no case to answer, he had made an exculpatory statement from the dock. He appealed against his conviction.
Held: Lord Lane LCJ said: ‘How then . .
CitedRiley v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 1990
A police officer is not acting in the execution of his duty by arresting or detaining someone unless that arrest or detention is lawful. Justices are not entitled to infer that a police officer was acting in the course of his duty in carrying out a . .
CitedRegina v Brent Justices ex parte Linehan Admn 5-Oct-1998
The court was asked whether the Justices were entitled to find that the officers were acting in the execution of their duty without the production in court of the warrant or notice of authority. There was no evidence as to the actual existence of a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Magistrates

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518561

W v Warrington Magistrates Court: Admn 30 Jun 2009

Application for permission to apply for judicial review with the hearing to follow if permission is granted. W seeks to quash decisions of Warrington Magistrates Court by which, at a Youth Court, he was convicted of attempted rape on 17 October 2008 and of three sexual assaults on 13 November 2008.

[2009] EWHC 1538 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Magistrates

Updated: 23 November 2021; Ref: scu.347307

Rahmdezfouli, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Court Sitting At Wood Green and Another: Admn 9 Oct 2013

The appellant challenged the refusal to allow him to vacate a guilty plea to a charge of failures to comply with a planning enforcement notice. It had been agreed that the magistrates had failed to ask the two questions required under the 1980 Act. The claimant contended that the Crown Court Judge erred in refusing to allow him to vacate his plea after finding as a fact that the magistrates’ court clerk had ‘failed to ask the statutory questions of the applicant’ as required by s.17A of the MCA. It was not disputed that the requisite procedure had not been followed ‘in any respect’, and ‘defence counsel conferred with his client and on coming into court told the court that his client wished to plead guilty to the offence. It was argued by the Interested Party . . that it was therefore appropriate for the court to accept from what counsel said that this defendant was fully aware of the implications of the offence to which he was intending to plead guilty and should therefore be regarded as having been fully informed before making that decision.’
The claimant, submitted: ‘that there was a requirement that the defendant should at the least have explained to him by the court, in ordinary language as the section requires, of four essential things: that the offence he faced was an either way offence; that he would be asked for an indication as to his plea if the case proceeded to trial; that if he indicated he wished to plead guilty that would be treated as a guilty plea; and fourthly that the court had the power to send him to the Crown Court for sentence if it thought right so to do.’Mackay J replied: ‘The issue therefore in this claim is whether it was the intention of Parliament that a failure to follow the statutory procedure laid down in section 17A rendered all subsequent proceedings invalid and a nullity, or whether they were to be considered a procedural failure.’ The claimant submiitted that the failure in that case ‘went to the heart of the court’s jurisdiction’. A magistrates’ court only derived its jurisdiction from statute and was only entitled to try an either way offence, as opposed to a summary offence, where the statutory requirement has been fully complied with. Mackay J observed that there was ‘a clear line of authority’ supporting that submission. He referred, inter alia, to Cockshott and Ex p Machin. He noted that theauthorities were not disapproved in Ashton. Quashing the conviction, Mackay J reasoned: ‘Adopting the criterion expressed in paragraph 4 of Ashton and not disapproved by the House of Lords in [Clarke] the legislature in enacting section 17A must have intended . . acting in line with then existing authority, that where a magistrates’ court declined or failed to follow the requirements of the section it was acting without jurisdiction every bit as much as if, for instance, it had purported to try a defendant on a charge of homicide . . ..’

Moses LJ, MacKay J
[2013] EWHC 2998 (Admin), [2013] WLR(D) 377, (2013) 177 JP 677, [2014] 1 All ER 567, [2014] Crim LR 158, 177 JP 677, [2014] 1 Cr App R 20
Bailii, WLRD
Magistrates Court Act 1980 17A
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Kent Justices, Ex parte Machin 1952
The applicant had been charged before the justices with indictable offences. He consented to summary trial but it had not been explained to him that he might be committed to the Quarter Sessions for sentence.
Held: The court allowed . .
CitedClarke, Regina v; Regina v McDaid HL 6-Feb-2008
An indictment had not been signed despite a clear statutory provision that it should be. The defects were claimed to have been cured by amendment before sentence.
Held: The convictions failed. Sections 1(1) and 2(1) of the 1933 Act which . .

Cited by:
CitedWestminster City Council v Owadally and Another Admn 17-May-2017
Defendant must plea to charge, and not counsel
The defendants had, through their barrister, entered pleas of guilty, but the crown court had declared the convictions invalid because this had to have been done by the defendants personally, and remitted the cases and the confiscation proceedings . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 21 November 2021; Ref: scu.516326

Jordan, Regina (on The Application of) v Merseyside Police and Another: Admn 21 Aug 2020

Claim for order quashing a search warrant on bases: ‘first, that it was granted on the basis of a deliberately false and exaggerated account of the execution of a previous warrant on 20 February 2019; second, that there were material non-disclosures about that search and about subsequent occasions on which police officers attended but found nothing of interest and took no further action.’ The defendants now requested that part of the evidence be redacted on the grounds of Public Interest Immunity.

Mr Justice Chamberlain
[2020] EWHC 2274 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Police, Magistrates

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.653193

M v Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale Magistrates’ Court: Admn 14 Oct 2009

The question in issue in this application for judicial review of the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale Magistrates’ Court is whether that court properly exercised its powers to proceed to a determination in the absence of the defendants.

Mr Justice Langstaff
[2009] EWHC 2874 (Admin), (2010) 174 JP 102
Bailii
England and Wales

Magistrates

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.381465

B v Leeds Crown Court and Another: Admn 24 Feb 2016

Appeal by way of case stated from the Leeds Crown Court raises a question about the implications for the sentencing of youths of restrictions on the powers of a magistrates’ court to sentence adult offenders.

Simon LJ, Leggatt J
[2016] EWHC 1230 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Magistrates, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.564801

Regina v Howell (Errol): CACD 1981

The court considered the meaning of the legal concept of a breach of the peace.
Held: The essence is to be found in violence or threatened violence. ‘We entertain no doubt that a constable has a power of arrest where there is reasonable apprehension of imminent danger of a breach of the peace; so for that matter has the ordinary citizen. We hold there is a power of arrest for breach of the peace where (1) a breach of the peace is committed in the presence of the person making the arrest, or (2) the arrestor reasonably believes that such a breach of the peace will be committed in the immediate future by the person arrested although he has not yet committed any breach, or (3) where a breach has been committed and it is reasonably believed that a renewal of it is threatened’. And
‘We are emboldened to say that there is a breach of the peace whenever harm is actually done or likely to be done to a person or in his presence to his property or a person is in fear of being so harmed through an assault, an affray, a riot, unlawful assembly or other disturbance. It is for this breach of the peace when done in his presence that a constable, or anyone else, may arrest an offender without warrant’. Justices, for three or more centuries have managed to cope with the offence of breach of the peace, not only as to when conduct has caused such a breach but also as to whether it was likely to do so: ‘ . . . since keeping the peace in this country in the latter half of the 20th century presents formidable problems which bear upon the evolving process of the development of this breach of the common law. Nevertheless, even in these days when affrays, riotous behaviour and other disturbances happen all too frequently. We cannot accept that there can be a breach of the peace unless there has been an act done or threatened to be done which either actually harms a person, or in his presence his property, or is likely to cause such harm, or which puts someone in fear of such harm being done. There is nothing more likely to arouse resentment and anger in him, and a desire to take instant revenge, than attacks or threatened attacks on a person’s body or property.’ and ‘We hold that there is a power of arrest for breach of the peace where (1) a breach of the peace is committed in the presence of the person making the arrest … (2) the arrestor reasonably believes that such a breach will be committed in the immediate future by the person arrested although he has not yet committed any breach . . .’

Lord Justice Watkins
[1982] 1 QB 416, [1982] QB 416, [1981] 73 Crim App R 31
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedChief Constable of Cleveland Police v Mark Anthony McGrogan CA 12-Feb-2002
The Chief Constable appealed a finding of false imprisonment of the claimant. He had once been properly arrested, but before he was freed, it was decided that he should be held for court and an information laid alleging breach of the peace. They . .
CitedJarrett v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police CA 14-Feb-2003
The claimant sought damages for false imprisonment and assault after her wrongful arrest. She had waived her handbag at an officer investigating a disturbance and been arrested. The police said the arrest was lawful, she being suspected of common . .
CitedThe Chief Constable of Lancashire v Potter Admn 13-Oct-2003
The claimant appealed refusal of an Anti-Social Behaviour order by the magistrates. The respondent was a street prostitute in Preston. The magistrates had declined to aggregate her behaviour with that of others to find that it caused harrassment . .
CitedLaporte, Regina (on the Application of) v Gloucestershire Constabulary and others Admn 19-Feb-2004
The court considered a claim for judicial review of a police officer’s decision to turn back a number of coaches. Each coach contained passengers en route to join a demonstration at an RAF base in Gloucestershire, the officer honestly and reasonably . .
CitedMoss v McLachlan QBD 1985
Four striking miners were travelling in a convoy of motor vehicles and were stopped by a police cordon at a junction within several miles of four collieries. The inspector in charge believed with reason that a breach of the peace would be committed . .
CitedLaporte, Regina (on the Application of) v Gloucestershire Constabulary and others CA 8-Dec-2004
The claimant had been in a bus taking her and others to an intended demonstration. The police feared breaches of the peace, and stopped the bus, and ordered the driver to return to London, and escorted it to ensure it did not stop.
Held: The . .
CitedRegina v Nicol and Selvanayagam QBD 10-Nov-1995
The appellants appealed a bind-over for a finding that each appellant had been guilty of conduct whereby a breach of the peace was likely to be occasioned. The appellants, concerned about cruelty to animals, had obstructed an angling competition by . .
CitedRedmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 23-Jul-1999
The police had arrested three peaceful but vociferous preachers when some members of a crowd gathered round them threatened hostility.
Held: Freedom of speech means nothing unless it includes the freedom to be irritating, contentious, . .
CitedWragg, Regina (on the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 15-Jun-2005
The court faced a case stated where the defendant had been accused of resisting arrest. The officers claimed to have anticipated a breach of the peace, having been called to a domestic dispute.
Held: Though the defendant had not behaved with . .
CitedHawkes 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 . .
CitedHawkes, 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 . .
CitedBibby v Chief Constable of Essex Police CA 6-Apr-2000
A bailiff sought to execute against goods in a shop against the will of the occupier. The police attended and when tempers were raised the police officer anticipated a breach of the peace by the bailiff and arrested him. He sought damages for that . .
CitedSteel and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 23-Sep-1998
The several applicants had been arrested in different circumstances and each charged with breach of the peace contrary to common law. Under the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, the court can bind over a Defendant to keep the peace, if the Defendant . .
CitedLaporte, Regina (on the application of ) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimants had been in coaches being driven to take part in a demonstration at an air base. The defendant police officers stopped the coaches en route, and, without allowing any number of the claimants to get off, returned the coaches to London. . .
Not preferredMoss v McLachlan QBD 1985
There had been violent conflict between members of different unons in the context of the miners’ strike. The police had found it difficult to maintain the peace. The appellants were four of about sixty striking miners intent on a mass demonstration . .
FollowedPercy v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 13-Dec-1994
A woman protester repeatedly climbed over the perimeter fencing into a military base.
Held: The defendant had a choice between agreeing to be bound over and going to prison. Her refusal to agree to be bound over had an immediate and obvious . .
CitedHashman and Harrup v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Nov-1999
The defendants had been required to enter into a recognisance to be of good behaviour after disrupting a hunt by blowing of a hunting horn. They were found to have unlawfully caused danger to the dogs. Though there had been no breach of the peace, . .
CitedWright v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis QBD 11-Sep-2013
The claimant sought damages for false imprisonment and infringement of his human rights in the manner of the defendant’s management of a demonstration in which he was involved. The issue was whether ilce action was justified on the basis that the . .
CitedHumberside Police v McQuade CA 12-Jul-2001
Defendant’s appeal against an order giving judgment for the claimant in the action for damages to be assessed for wrongful arrest and personal injury. The claimant had been arrested in his home, purportedly for a breach of the peace. There was no . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Magistrates, Police

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.182926

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 did not personally receive or consider the information in question.
Held: The information was laid when it was received at the office of the clerk to the justice by a member of the staff expressly or impliedly authorised to receive it. It is for the prosecutor, if he wants to prosecute, to prepare and lay the information before the magistrates. The acts of delivery and receipt are ministerial and justices of the peace or clerks to the justices may delegate to an appropriate subordinate authority. Where a summons is needed, the information must after receipt be laid before a justice or the clerk to the justices; the function of a justice or the justices clerk in deciding whether a summons should be issued is a judicial one which must be performed judicially and which cannot lawfully be delegated to a subordinate.
Lord Roskill said: ‘First, in their criminal jurisdiction, what magistrates’ courts have jurisdiction to try summarily is an information, and what is required to give them that jurisdiction is that an information has been laid before them. Secondly, in their civil jurisdiction, what magistrates’ courts have jurisdiction to try is a complaint, and what is required to give them that jurisdiction is that a complaint has been made to them. Their jurisdiction in criminal cases does not depend upon a summons or a warrant being issued and their civil jurisdiction does not depend on a summons being issued.’ and
‘My Lords, it is of crucial importance to appreciate that the laying of an information is a matter for the prosecution just as the making of a complaint is a matter for the complainant. In each case it is for the prosecutor or the complainant to decide how the information or how the complaint shall be formulated. I agree with the Divisional Court in the present cases that the commencement of criminal proceedings lies in the hands of the prosecutor. It is, in my opinion, the prosecutor’s duty, if he wishes to prosecute, to prepare and lay the information before the magistrates’ court, which means a justice of the peace or the clerk to the justices. The laying of an information before or the making of a complaint to a justice of the peace or the clerk to the justices to my mind means, in reference to a written information or complaint, procuring the delivery of the document to a person authorised to receive it on behalf of the justice of the peace and the clerks. The acts of delivery and receipt are ministerial, and I see no reason why the justice of the peace or the clerk to the justices should not delegate an appropriate subordinate authority to receive the information which the prosecutor desires to deliver. It can sensibly be inferred that any member of the staff in the office of the clerks to the justices authorised to handle incoming post has such authority. Accordingly, once the information has been received at the office of the clerk to the justices, which today in most cases is likely to be at the magistrates’ court house, the information in my view have been laid. No more is required of the prosecutor to launch the intended criminal proceedings. Similarly with a complaint – once the complaint is received at the office of the clerk to the justices no more is required of the complainant.
What happens thereafter is not within the province of the prosecutor or the complainant but of the court.’
Lord Roskill repeated that the foundation of the magistrates’ court’s jurisdiction is the laying of the information or the making of a complaint ‘and not the issue of any summons which may or may not follow the laying of an information or the making of a complaint.’
and ‘I would answer the certified question by saying: ‘An information is laid for the purpose of section 127 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 when it is received at the office of the clerk to the justices for the relevant area.’ I would add that is not necessary for the information to be personally received by justices of the peace or by the clerks to the justices. It is enough that it is received by any member of the staff of the clerk to the justices, expressly or impliedly authorised to receive it, for onward transmission to a to a justice of the peace, or to the clerk to the justices. The same applies to the making of a complaint.’

Lord Roskill
[1993] AC 328
Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 127(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRockall 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 . .
CitedBrown, Regina v CANI 8-Sep-2011
The defendant appealed against his conviction for having had unlawful sex with an underage girl. He had pleaded guilty but now said this had been n a misunderstanding of the law. He had believed the girl to be 15, but his belief that that belief was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.258451

Williams v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 24 Jul 2009

Thomas LJ said: ‘When the magistrates were faced with the application for an amendment, the law was clear and remains clear. The principles are set out in Section 123 and 127 of the Magistrates’ Court Act [1980] and in the single decision of this court to which it is necessary to refer, R v Scunthorpe Justices, ex parte McPhee and Gallagher [1998] 162 JPR 635.’
As to the excuse that the courts were busy: ‘It may also have been the case that the lists in the court at Chorley are very busy. It would be somewhat surprising to find that the Court is so busy that a case has to go off from from October 2007 to February 2008. That is no doubt a matter that can be carefully looked into by the presiding judges of the circuit. However, the fact that a trial date has been fixed and the court is busy highlights the real problem in this case and why in my view it was not in the interests of justice to grant the amendment.
Modern case management set out in the criminal procedure rules requires a proper attention to case management duties. There was no excuse whatsoever of counsel who has appeared for the CPS has proffered none for the failure to raise the application to make the amendment of the case management hearing on 3 July 2007; given that it was over 5 months after the charge and the case was a simple one. Even if that could be excused, there is no excuse for the failure to apply to the Court for a short hearing to determine the question of the amendment once the point was appreciated on 7 August 2007.’ and ‘However, it is a clear and longstanding principle of our courts that justice must be delivered with promptitude. What has changed is the obligation of the parties to ensure that the Court, whose resources are limited, are able to use those resourcess efficiently by the proper conduct of case management under the criminal procedure rules.
The reason, therefore, it seems to me why it is over all in the interests of justice to decide the case in the way in which I consider it should be decided, is that there was a fundamental failure on the part of the Crown properly to have regard in their preparation of this case to the observance of the criminal procedure rules, particularly in the case management hearing and to the interests of justice, those interests are best served in this case by disallowing the amendment to the charge.’

Thomas LJ, Burton J
[2009] EWHC 2354 (Admin)
Bailii
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 123 127
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina 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:
CitedCrann v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 27-Feb-2013
The defendant appealed by case stated against an order allowing the amendment of an information against him. He was first accused of failing to provide a specimen of breath for testing after being stopped and suspected of driving with excess . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.376007

Dodsworth v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 8 Nov 2010

The defendant effectively sought to appeal against his conviction on his own guilty plea to possession of wild bird eggs. They had been collected before possession itself was made an offence, and he had received them before the 2004 Act, after which only the person originally collecting an egg could lawfully possess it. He said that he had entered a plea only on the basis of incorrect legal advice. He now wished to argue that the 2004 Regulations were invalid becaue the necessary period of consultation had not been undertaken. The defendant had not given the required written notice inder the Rules, and the application was after six months against a limit of three weeks.
Held: The case based upon lack of consultation was now accepted to be hopeless, and nor were the 2004 Regulations ultra vires.

Langstaff J
[2010] EWHC 3435 (Admin)
Bailii
Protection of Birds Act 1954 1, Protection of Birds Act 1967, Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (England and Wales Amendments) Regulations 2004, Magistrates Courts Act 1980 142, Criminal Procedure Rules 37.9
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedEshugbayi Eleko v Office Administering the Government of Nigeria HL 24-Mar-1931
The claimant sought a writ of habeas corpus.
Held: Lord Atkin said that in a habeas corpus case, ‘no member of the executive can interfere with the liberty or property of a British subject except on condition that he can support the legality . .
CitedAnsar v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc and others CA 9-Oct-2006
The claimant challenged a decision of the chairman of the Employment tribunal not to recuse himself on a later hearing after the claimant had previously made allegations of bias and improper conduct against him. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Magistrates

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.427934

Regina v Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court ex parte Fiona Watts: Admn 8 Feb 1999

The defendant sought to have dismissed as an abuse of proces charges against her that as an officer of Customs and Excise prosecuting the now private prosecutor, she had committed various offences.
Held: The magistrate was vested with jurisdiction to consider whether summonses issued by a convicted defendant amounted to an abuse of process, and ‘We accordingly have no doubt that the summonses are an abuse of the criminal process. ‘

Buxton LJ, Collins J
[1999] EWHC Admin 112, [1999] 2 CAR 188, [1999] 2 Cr App Rep 188
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedDirector 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. . .
CitedMills v Cooper QBD 1967
Two sets of criminal proceedings were brought against the defendant for offences under section 127 of the Highways Act 1959 namely that of being a gypsy and, without lawful excuse, camping on a highway. The first proceedings were brought in respect . .
CitedImperial Tobacco Ltd v Attorney-General HL 1980
The applicant sought a declaration as to the lawfulness of a lottery scheme whilst criminal proceedings were pending against it for the same scheme.
Held: It was not necessary to decide whether a declaration as to the criminality or otherwise . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedHunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police HL 19-Nov-1981
No collateral attack on Jury findigs.
An attempt was made to open up in a civil action, allegations of assaults by the police prior to the making of confessions which had been disposed of in a voir dire in the course of a criminal trial. The plaintiffs had imprisoned having spent many . .
CitedRegina v Horsham Justices, ex parte Reeves (Note) QBD 1980
The police had decided simply to re-lay charges which had already been dismissed after an extensive depositions hearing. The charges were simplified but essentially the same.
Held: This was an abuse of process. A court is possessed of a . .
CitedRegina v Oxford City Justices, ex parte Smith QBD 1982
The defendant had given a positive breath test. The laboratory test showed a urine/alcohol proportion above the prescribed limit. He was warned that proceedings were possible. The summons was issued within the six months’ period prescribed by the . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedRegina v Guildford Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Healy CACD 1983
Magistrates faced with a claim of abuse of process should recognise the wider responsibility for upholding the rule of law which must be that of the High Court. If a serious question arises as to the deliberate abuse of extradition procedures a . .
CitedRegina v Bros 1902
A magistrate should consider, before issuing a summons, whether it appears to be vexatious. . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedRegina v Barnet Justices ex parte R QBD 10-Nov-1994
The court accepted, on the basis of Bennett, that the magistrates did not have jurisdiction to consider allegations of abuse based on ‘bad faith’. . .
CitedRegina v Barnet Justices ex parte R QBD 10-Nov-1994
The court accepted, on the basis of Bennett, that the magistrates did not have jurisdiction to consider allegations of abuse based on ‘bad faith’. . .
CitedStevenson v Garnett 1898
AL Smith LJ: ‘The court ought to be slow to strike out a statement of claim or defence, and to dismiss an action as frivolous and vexatious yet it ought to do so when as here, it has been shown that the identical question sought to be raised has . .
CitedWalpole v Partridge and Wilson (A Firm) CA 8-Jul-1993
The plaintiff, who had been convicted before the magistrates, sued the solicitors who had acted for him in connection with a proposed appeal to the Crown Court for failure to lodge such an appeal. The solicitors applied to strike out the action, . .
CitedSmith v Linskills CA 1996
The claimant, a convicted burglar took proceedings against his former solicitors. He alleged that the negligence of the solicitor caused his wrongful conviction.
Held: The case was dismissed. The claimant was seeking to re-litigate issues . .

Cited by:
CitedLevey, Regina v CACD 27-Jul-2006
The defendant appealed against his conviction of manslaughter of his baby son. He said that a family court had previously investigated the same allegations and had explicitly found itself unable to say which of himself and the mother were . .
CitedPanday v Virgil PC 9-Apr-2008
(Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant’s appeal against conviction had succeeded on the basis of apparent bias in the tribunal. He now appealed the order remitting the case to be reheard, saying that a fair trial was no longer possible.
Held: The . .
CitedCraik, 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 . .
CitedAbdul and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 16-Feb-2011
The defendants appealed against convictions for using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour . . within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress. He had attended a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.139376

B v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary: QBD 5 Apr 2000

The defendant appealed the making of a sex offender order under 1998 Act. The justices had found that the defendant was a sex offender within section 2(1)(a) and that he had acted on a number of occasions in a way which brought him within section 2(1)(b).
Held: The civil standard of proof is flexible and can vary with the seriousness of the allegation made. The court considered the standard of proof applicable: ‘In a serious case such as the present the difference between the two standards is, in truth, largely illusory. I have no doubt that, in deciding whether the condition in section 2(1)(a) is fulfilled, a magistrates’ court should apply a civil standard of proof which will for all practical purposes be indistinguishable from the criminal standard. In deciding whether the condition in section 2(1)(b) is fulfilled the magistrates’ court should apply the civil standard with the strictness appropriate to the seriousness of the matters to be proved and the implications of proving them.’ and ‘There is no room for doubt about the mischief against which this legislation is directed, which is the risk of re-offending by sex offenders who have offended in the past and have shown a continuing propensity to offend. Parliament might have decided to wait until, if at all, the offender did offend again and then appropriate charges could be laid on the basis of that further offending. Before 1998 there was effectively no choice but to act in that way. But the obvious disadvantage was that, by the time the offender had offended again, some victim had suffered. The rationale of section 2 was, by means of an injunctive order, to seek to avoid the contingency of any further suffering by any further victim. It would also of course be to the advantage of a defendant if he were to be saved from further offending. As in the case of a civil injunction, a breach of the court’s order may attract a sanction. But, also as in the case of a civil injunction, the order, although restraining the defendant from doing that which is prohibited, imposes no penalty or disability upon him. I am accordingly satisfied that, as a matter of English domestic law, the application is a civil proceeding, as Parliament undoubtedly intended it to be.’
Lord Bingham of Cornhill: ‘The rationale of section 2 was, by means of an injunctive order, to seek to avoid the contingency of any further suffering by any further victim. It would also of course be to the advantage of a defendant if he were to be saved from further offending. As in the case of a civil injunction, a breach of the court’s order may attract a sanction. But, also as in the case of a civil injunction, the order, although restraining the defendant from doing that which is prohibited, imposes no penalty or disability upon him. I am accordingly satisfied that, as a matter of English domestic law, the application is a civil proceeding, as Parliament undoubtedly intended it to be.’ and ‘If anyone is the subject of a prohibitory court order for breach of which he is liable to severe punishment, that person is entitled to know, clearly and unambiguously, what conduct he must avoid to comply with the order. Such clarity is essential for him. It is scarcely less essential for any authority responsible for policing compliance with the order and for any court called upon to decide whether the terms of the order have been broken. The order should be expressed in simple terms, easily understood even by those who, like the appellant, are not very bright. If the order is wider than is necessary for the purposes of protecting the public from serious harm from the defendant, the order will not meet the requirements of section 2(4) of the 1998 Act and will fall foul of the Convention requirement that the means employed, if restrictive of guaranteed rights, should be necessary and proportionate to the legitimate ends towards which they are directed.’

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, CJ
[2001] 1 WLR 340, [2000] Po LR 98, [2000] EWHC 559 (QB), [2001] 1 All ER 562
Bailii
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 2
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedIn re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) HL 14-Dec-1995
Evidence allowed – Care Application after Abuse
Children had made allegations of serious sexual abuse against their step-father. He was acquitted at trial, but the local authority went ahead with care proceedings. The parents appealed against a finding that a likely risk to the children had still . .

Cited by:
CitedGough and Another v Chief Constable of Derbyshire CA 20-Mar-2002
The appellants challenged the legality under European law of orders under the Act restricting their freedom of movement, after suspicion of involvement in football violence.
Held: Although the proceedings under which orders were made were . .
CitedIn re LU (A Child); In re LB (A Child) (Serious Injury: Standard of Proof); re U (A Child) (Department for Education and Skills intervening) CA 14-May-2004
In each case, the other parent appealed care orders where she had been found to have injured her children. In each case the sole evidence was the injury to the child’s health and expert medical evidence. The cases were referred following the . .
CitedRe ET (Serious Injuries: Standard of Proof) FD 2003
The court heard a care application in which the baby had sustained skull, brain and other injuries alleged to be at the hands of her parents.
Held: The standard of proof was the civil standard of the balance of probabilities and directed . .
DistinguishedRegina (DJ) v Mental Health Review Tribunal; Regina (AN) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region) Admn 11-Apr-2005
Each applicant sought judicial review of the refusal of the tribunal to authorise their release from detention under the 1983 Act, saying that the Tribunal had accepted evidence to a lower standard of proof.
Held: Neither the criminal standard . .
CitedRegina (McCann and Others) v Manchester Crown Court CA 9-Mar-2001
Proceedings applying for an anti-social behaviour order, were properly civil proceedings, with civil standards of evidence, and the Human Rights Act provisions relating to criminal proceedings, were not applicable either. The section included acts . .
CitedClingham (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 . .
CitedCampbell v Hamlet (as executrix of Simon Alexander) PC 25-Apr-2005
(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant was an attorney. A complaint was made that he had been given money to buy land, but neither had the land been conveyed nor the money returned. The complaint began in 1988, but final speeches were not heard until . .
CitedW, Regina (on the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 8-Jun-2005
The defendant appealed a conviction for breaching an anti-social behaviour order. The order had prohibited him from committing any criminal act. It was now challenged as being too wide a prohibition.
Held: ‘The defendant had already been . .
CitedAN, Regina (on the Application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region) and others CA 21-Dec-2005
The appellant was detained under section 37 of the 1983 Act as a mental patient with a restriction under section 41. He sought his release.
Held: The standard of proof in such applications remained the balance of probabilities, but that . .
CitedFiona Trust and Holding Corp and others v Privalov and others ComC 20-Oct-2006
The parties disputed whether their claim should be arbitrated.
Held: A claim as to whether the contract itself had been made was not one which could be arbitrated by provisions in that contract. It does not arise ‘under’ the contract. The . .
CitedIn re D; Doherty, Re (Northern Ireland); Life Sentence Review Commissioners v D HL 11-Jun-2008
The Sentence Review Commissioners had decided not to order the release of the prisoner, who was serving a life sentence. He had been released on licence from a life sentence and then committed further serious sexual offences against under-age girls . .
CitedLangley v Preston Crown Court and others CACD 30-Oct-2008
The defendant sought to appeal against a ‘stand-alone’ anti-social behaviour order. The parties disputed whether an appeal lay. The act created an appeal against the making of an order but in this case it was a renewed order.
Held: In the . .
CitedIn re S-B (Children) (Care proceedings: Standard of proof) SC 14-Dec-2009
A child was found to have bruising consistent with physical abuse. Either or both parents might have caused it, but the judge felt it likely that only one had, that he was unable to decide which, and that they were not so serious that he had to say . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Evidence

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.179863

Regina (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Camberwell Green Youth Court ex parte C W K and A: QBD 5 Dec 2003

Magistrates have no Power to redo Mode of Trial

The prosecutor appealed against a refusal of the magistrates to revisit their decision on mode of trial.
Held: The court had no inherent jurisdiction to revisit their decision, and nor did the sections referred to grant any. Craske would have to be revisited by the House of Lords.
Jackson J after reviewing the cases under the sections, held that where a bench of Justices had considered all the factors placed before it relevant to the exercise of their discretion under Section 24 of the Magistrates Court Act and ordered a summary trial, a differently constituted bench of Justices had no power to re-examine that decision on the same facts.
Jackson J stated: ‘Accordingly, I for my part am not persuaded by any of Mr Perry’s submissions [for the prosecution] that this court should depart from the consistent theme of two decades’ authority concerning the correct interpretation of the 1980 Act, nor should this court depart from what appears to be the clear meaning of those provisions of the statute.’
Section 24 provided for ‘a single decision on the mode of trial. It does not permit serial reconsideration of the same question, whether or not new material emerges. . [S]ub-sections (5) to (7) [of section 25] permit the Magistrates’ Court to change its mind as to mode of trial for persons under the age of 18 during the course of the summary trial or committal proceedings. The statute is quite explicit as to the circumstances in which justices can change a decision as to mode of trial. It is not permissible to read into the Act some vague power to change the mode of trial in other circumstances’.
He continued however: ‘I think it desirable as a matter of policy that magistrates should have the power to change decisions concerning mode of trial (when good grounds exist to do so) even before the circumstances specified in section 25 of the Act have come into existence. It is to be hoped that Parliament, which devotes a great deal of time to the reform of criminal justice, will find an opportunity to make the sensible and beneficial reforms for which [counsel for the prosecution] contends. One would have thought that those reforms may well not be controversial.’

Rose LJ, Jackson J
(2004) 168 JP 157, (2004) 168 JPN 233, Times 09-Jan-2004, [2003] EWHC 3217 (Admin)
Bailii
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
England and Wales
Citing:
DoubtedRegina (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Camberwell Green Youth Court ex parte C W K and A QBD 5-Dec-2003
Magistrates have no Power to redo Mode of Trial
The prosecutor appealed against a refusal of the magistrates to revisit their decision on mode of trial.
Held: The court had no inherent jurisdiction to revisit their decision, and nor did the sections referred to grant any. Craske would have . .

Cited by:
DoubtedRegina (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Camberwell Green Youth Court ex parte C W K and A QBD 5-Dec-2003
Magistrates have no Power to redo Mode of Trial
The prosecutor appealed against a refusal of the magistrates to revisit their decision on mode of trial.
Held: The court had no inherent jurisdiction to revisit their decision, and nor did the sections referred to grant any. Craske would have . .
CitedCrown 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 . .
CitedZN and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Bromley Youth Court Admn 9-Jul-2014
The applicants, both aged 16, sought permission to bring judicial review of a decision to commit thme for trial at the adult Crown Court on theft charges along with a co-defendant adult (though 18).
Held: Permission was granted.
Hayden J . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.190497

W, Regina (on The Application of) v Southampton Youth Court: Admn 23 Jul 2002

Presumption against sending Youths to Crown Court

W was a youth accused with another of robbery. The District judge magistrate had sent him for trial at the Crown Court although finding ‘[W] is 14 years of age with no previous conviction and is not a persistent offender.’
Held: Woolf LJ approved a statement: ‘in respect of offenders under 15 a custodial sentence will ordinarily only be available in the form of a detention and training order. If the court is prohibited from making such an order in general an order under section 91 will not be appropriate.’ To send a defendant in a Youth Court for trial at the Crown Court: ‘ justices should start off with a strong presumption against sending young offenders to the Crown Court unless they are satisfied that that is clearly required, notwithstanding the fact that the forum for trial will not be so appropriate as the Youth Court. ‘ and ‘ justices should start off with a strong presumption against sending young offenders to the Crown Court unless they are satisfied that that is clearly required, notwithstanding the fact that the forum for trial will not be so appropriate as the Youth Court.’

The Lord Woolf of Barnes LCJ, Kay LJ
[2002] EWHC 1640 (Admin), [2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 87, (2002) 166 JP 569, [2002] Crim LR 750
Bailii
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 91 100, Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 24(1)
England and Wales

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.539976

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 had all the facts and the court had assumed that the fault was that of the prosecution. On the second day, further paperwork placed the fault with the police. The missing evidence was a DNA report.
Held: The request for review failed. There was a common law principle that a lower court has only limited power to re-visit and to revoke a previously made order although it can do so in the interests of justice, in particular, in changed circumstances. The efficacious administration of justice is a central legal policy behind the rule. Decisions will be fact sensitive. The situation here did involve a change of circumstances sufficient to invoke the common law power.

Leveson, Cranston JJ
[2010] EWHC 916 (Admin), (2010) 174 JP 342
Bailii
Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 8A 8B
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Newham Juvenile Court ex parte F (A Minor) QBD 1986
F who was 16 years old when he appeared before the juvenile court charged with robbery and possession of an imitation firearm. The justices decided to proceed summarily. No plea was taken. After being released on bail, he later appeared before a . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedWatson, 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 . .
CitedBrett 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 . .
CitedF (A Minor), Regina (on the Application of) v Knowsley Magistrates Court Admn 15-Mar-2006
On its first application the CPS requested that the trial date be vacated because they had not received a full file of evidence. That application was refused. The case remained listed for trial that afternoon. In the afternoon the prosecution was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.408831

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 conducting a private prosecution was not a ‘prosecutor’ able to take the benefit of section 31 of the 2006 Act. She argued that the power under section 31 of the 2006 Act to certify conclusively for the purposes of limitation when matters came to the prosecutor’s knowledge was a power that was restricted to state prosecutors and not to private prosecutors.
Held: After a review of the provisions of the Act, the power was a power available to all prosecutors.
The phrase ‘the prosecutor’ in section 31 of the 2006 Act is not limited to prosecutors who prosecute pursuant to a power conferred by some statutory provision but applies to anyone who initiates a prosecution under the Act. The absence of a remedy by way of judicial review against a private prosecutor was not a basis to conclude that section 31 was to be interpreted so as to exclude private prosecutors from its ambit. The magistrates’ court in which a prosecution is brought can investigate whether or not the proceedings have been brought within the time limit specified in section 31 of the Act and it can also investigate whether any certificate issued under section 31(2) should be treated as conclusive of the facts stated therein. Once an appropriate procedure exists for contending that the prosecutor has not brought proceedings within time or that the certificate issued under section 31(2) should not be treated as conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein the absence of a remedy by way of judicial review loses much of its significance.

Sir John Thomas P
[2012] EWHC 1002 (Admin)
Bailii
Animal Welfare Act 2006 4 31, Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 127(10
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedKerr v John Mottram Ltd ChD 1940
The court considered an application by a shareholder of a company to enforce an alleged contract for the sale of shares that he claimed were offered to him at a meeting of the company. The minutes of the company meeting did not support the . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedTerra Woningen BV v The Netherlands ECHR 17-Dec-1996
A court had considered itself bound by a decision of the Provincial Executive within the Netherlands adverse to the applicant company.
Held: That was in breach of article 6(1). There was not access to a tribunal with sufficient jurisdiction to . .
CitedMorgans v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 29-Dec-1998
The defendant argued that once the prosecutor had all the material on which the prosecution was eventually brought, then for the purposes of section 11(2) time began to run.
Held: When considering the time limits for a prosecution under the . .
CitedMorgans v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 18-Feb-2000
Without a warrant, the police had arranged for a call logger to retain details of the calls made, including the number called, time and duration. The dialing itself was a communication, which established a connection, through which further . .
CitedBurwell 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 . .

Cited by:
AppliedBrowning v Lewes Crown Court and RSPCA Admn 24-Apr-2012
The claimant appealed against the refusal by the respondent to state a case regarding its conviction of the claimant of offences under the 2006 Act.
Held: In view of the case of Perkins, the application failed save that the Crown Court should . .
CitedVirgin Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Zinga CACD 24-Jan-2014
Zinga had been convicted of conspiracy to defraud in a private prosecution brought by Virgin Media. After dismissal of the appeal against conviction, Virgin pursued confiscation proceedings. Zinga appealed against refusal of its argument that it was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.452904

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 proceedings and for getting him before the Court.
A magistrate who issues a summons or warrant without applying his mind to the information and completing this judicial exercise will be ‘guilty of dereliction of duty’.

Lord Justice Widgery
[1975] QB 455
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCraik, 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 . .
CitedLondon Borough of Newham, Regina (on the Application of) v Stratford Magistrates’ Court Admn 12-Oct-2004
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.408853

Regina v Cambridge Justices ex parte Yardline Limited and Bird: 1990

Complaint was made when one of the magistrates sitting in a case was a partner in a law firm which regularly represented one of the parties.

[1990] Crim LR 733
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedGray v Bristol Magistrates Court Admn 7-May-2008
The defendant was accused of a minor assault. He complained first about orders made by the district judge, but now complained that he was a barrister who had been instructed by the firm of solicitors which had been the subject of a complaint by the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.268751

Harrison, Regina (on The Application of) v Birmingham Magistrate’s Court and Another: CA 25 Mar 2011

The defendant appealed against a refusal of judicial review of an order that she forfeit a sum under the 2002 Act. 5,000 pounds in cash had been found at her house in a search for other matters. She had lied to the police about its provenance, but the court had found that there had been documentary evidence of the reason later given. She said that she had not been given notice of the hearing at which the application for confiscation was made, she having moved, but only orally told the police of the move.
Held: The order was quashed. If the appellant had had no notice of the proceedings, then the court, on the facts of this case, should quash the order of 29 April. It might be different if she was taking steps to prevent notice being given to her, but that is not this case.
Pending a review of the rules: ‘I would invite Magistrates to be particularly prudent about continuing with an application for a forfeiture order in circumstances like the present in the absence of the person with a claim to the money. If, as in this case, criminal proceedings are still ongoing, it might be thought worthwhile to give notice of the hearing to the solicitors dealing with the criminal case, albeit that those solicitors (as in this case) had not been instructed in the civil proceedings for forfeiture.’

Pill, Hooper, Munby LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 332
Bailii
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 298, Magistrates’ Courts (Detention and Forfeiture of Cash) Rules 2002
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Bolton Justices ex parte Scally CA 1991
A conviction or other judicial finding by an inferior tribunal is amenable to quashing by certiorari even if it was obtained without unfairness by the tribunal and without malpractice by the prosecutor or other complainant. Watkins LJ described what . .
CitedRegina (on the application of Marsh) v Lincoln District Magistrates’ Court Admn 2003
The court considered the power to quash a magistrates decision for an error on the part of the prosecutor.
Held: Munby J said: ‘In the first place, and as ex p Fox-Taylor and ex p A show, the jurisdiction is not confined to, although it is no . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.430848

Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission v Gibbons; Same v Karoonian: CA 30 Oct 2012

Non-resident parents in each case appealed against suspended orders of imprisonment for non-payment of child support. They argued that the procedures used were indistinguishable from those held to be human rights non-compliant in Mubarak.
Held: The Commission had not taken all alternative enforcement steps first as required by the Act, and accordingly it was ot open to it to make the application it had made agsinst Mr Gibbons.
Whilst such enforcement fell to be judged to crimnal standards under human rights law, the Act did in fact provide a sufficiently precise statement of the offence to be compliant.
The section allowed a choice between a driving disqualification, and a sentence of imprisonment, and: ‘The right to liberty is such a fundamental human right that deprivation must always be an order of last resort. The order should not be made without good reason. Given that there is this choice of sanction, the liable person is entitled to know why the option of disqualification was rejected and why imprisonment was preferred. Those reasons need not be expressed at length: all that is required is that the defendant should understand why the court thinks that imprisonment is the more appropriate choice.’ No such indication or consideartion had been given in the second case, and that appeal must also succeed.
It was also said that the form of summons indicated a presumption of guilt – it was for the respndent to show cause why he should not be committed, and ‘There would be nothing wrong with the inquiry into means being conducted by the Commission proving that the defendant has – or at some time after the making of the liability order had – the means to pay and, having established the case to answer on that, going on to consider his conduct and whether there is wilful refusal or culpable neglect. The danger is that the two stages are rolled into one – little or no evidence of means but get the defendant into the witness box to explain himself. That is impermissible muddling up . . The ratio of Mubarak is clear enough. I regret that I cannot see why the same reasoning does not compel us to reach the same conclusion here, namely that the procedures in fact adopted are frequently not compliant with Article 6.’

Ward, Richards, Patten LJJ
[2012] EWCA Civ 1379, [2012] WLR(D) 300
Bailii
Child Support Act 1991, Child Support (Collection and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, European Convention on Human Rights 6
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedFarley 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 . .
CitedMubarak v Mubarak CA 2001
A judgment summons, issued was issued by the wife to enforce a lump sum order made against her husband in their divorce proceedings. The judge had performed his statutory duty which included having to satisfy himself under s. 25 of the 1973 Act of . .
CitedMubarak v Mubarak FD 30-Nov-2000
In ancillary relief proceedings, where a respondent company director conceded that the assets and income of a company could be treated as his own, it could be proper to draw aside the veil of incorporation. Nevertheless the court should be careful . .
CitedRegina v A (Complainant’s Sexual History) (No 2) HL 17-May-2001
The fact of previous consensual sex between complainant and defendant could be relevant in a trial of rape, and a refusal to allow such evidence could amount to a denial of a fair trial to a defendant. Accordingly, where the evidence was so relevant . .
CitedRegina v Rimmington; Regina v Goldstein HL 21-Jul-2005
Common Law – Public Nuisance – Extent
The House considered the elements of the common law offence of public nuisance. One defendant faced accusations of having sent racially offensive materials to individuals. The second was accused of sending an envelope including salt to a friend as a . .
CitedRegina v Wolverhampton Magistrates Court ex parte Mould 1992
Kennedy LJ said: ‘the power to commit to prison [for a failure to pay local taxes] is plainly to be used as a weapon to extract payment rather than to punish’ . .
CitedLingens v Austria ECHR 8-Jul-1986
Freedom of expression, as secured in paragraph 1 of Article 10, constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for each individual’s self-fulfilment. Subject to paragraph 2, . .
CitedSalabiaku v France ECHR 7-Oct-1988
A Zairese national living in Paris, went to the airport to collect, as he said, a parcel of foodstuffs sent from Africa. He could not find this, but was shown a locked trunk, which he was advised to leave alone. He however took possession of it, . .
CitedSheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .
CitedKeogh v Regina CACD 7-Mar-2007
The defendant was charged under the 1989 Act. He complained that the effect of the Act was to put an unfair burden on him to establish that he was unaware of the damaging effects of disclosure.
Held: The Act did not comply with the defendant’s . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Child Support, Human Rights, Magistrates

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.465555

Redknapp and Another v Commissioner of the City of London Police and Another: Admn 23 May 2008

The claimant challenged the legality of a search warrant and the method of its execution on his home. He complained that the police had ensured publicity for the execution of the warrant.
Held: The obtaining of a search warrant is never to be treated as a formality. It authorises the invasion of a person’s home. All the material necessary to justify the grant of a warrant should be contained in the information provided on the form. If the magistrate or judge in the case of an application under section 9, does require any further information in order to satisfy himself that the warrant is justified, a note should be made of the additional information so that there is a proper record of the full basis upon which the warrant has been granted. In this case the information on which the warrant was issued was incomplete, and the search warrant was invalid.

Lord Justice Latham and Mr Justice Underhill
[2008] EWHC 1177 (Admin), Times 16-Jun-2008, (2008) 172 JPN 548, [2009] 1 All ER 229, (2008) 172 JP 388, [2008] Lloyd’s Rep FC 466, [2008] 1 All ER 229, [2009] 1 WLR 2091
Bailii
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 8
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedC, Regina (on the Application of) v ‘A’ Magistrates’ Court Admn 26-Sep-2006
Complaint was made about the slipshod completion of applications for search warrants. The nature of the review of compliance with Section 24(4) was to be that appropriate to Section 24(6). Underhill J held: ’26. The terms of s-s. (5) are new and . .

Cited by:
CitedFaisaltex Ltd and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Crown Court Sitting at Preston and others etc Admn 21-Nov-2008
Nine claimants sought leave to bring judicial review of the issue of search warrants against solicitors’ and business and other premises, complaining of the seizure of excluded material and of special procedure material. There were suspicions of the . .
CitedBhatti and Others v Croydon Magistrates’ Court and Others Admn 3-Feb-2010
The claimant challenged the valiity of search warrants used at his home. He said they were deficient in not including the information as required by the Act. The police said that they were in accordance with the Home Office guidance.
Held: . .
CitedGlobal Cash and Carry Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Birmingham Magistrates’ Court and Others Admn 19-Feb-2013
The claimant sought an order quashing a search warrant, and for damages. The officer had said that he had evidence that the claimants were storing an distributing from the premises large quantities of counterfeit goods and drugs.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Torts – Other, Magistrates

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.268721

Regina v Camberwell Green Magistrates’ Court ex parte Ibrahim: 1984

Taylor J said: ‘In my judgment, it is unfair and contrary to the interests of justice that simply because the applicant arrived half an hour late, she should be barred for ever from raising such defence as she wishes to what could be regarded as a serious charge.’

Taylor J
[1984] 148 JPL 400
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedJames v Tower Bridge Magistrates’ Court Admn 9-Jun-2009
The claimant challenged the decisions of the magistrates first to convict him under the 1992 Act in his absence, and then to refuse to re-open the case. He had attended late on the trial date, after attending hospital overnight with his young . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.511029

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 magistrates had no such jurisdiction. ‘section 33(4) precludes the justices from investigating whether a maintenance assessment, or maintenance calculation in the current terminology, is a nullity. ‘
Lord Nicholls said: ‘The need for a strict approach to the interpretation of an ouster provision . . was famously confirmed in the leading case of Anisminic . . This strict approach, however, is not appropriate if an effective means of challenging the validity of a maintenance assessment is provided elsewhere. Then section 33(4) is not an ouster provision. Rather, it is part of a statutory scheme which allocates jurisdiction to determine the validity of an assessment and decide whether the defendant is a ‘liable person’ to a court other than the magistrates’ court.’ and ‘This statute introduced a new child maintenance scheme. The scheme was intended to provide an effective, cheap and speedy means to enforce parental support obligations. Another aim, of considerable importance, was to reduce dependence on social security and the cost to the tax payer.’

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance
[2006] UKHL 31, Times 30-Jun-2006, [2006] Fam Law 735, [2006] 3 All ER 935, [2006] 2 FCR 713, [2006] 1 WLR 1817
Bailii
Child Support Act 1991 33(4), Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 , Child Support Act 1995
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromFarley 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 . .
CitedFarley 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, . .
At First InstanceFarley 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 . .
CitedSecretary of State for Social Security v Shotton and Others QBD 30-Jan-1996
Magistrates have no power to question an assessment made by the Child Support Agency when making a deduction order. . .
CitedAnisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission HL 17-Dec-1968
There are no degrees of nullity
The plaintiffs had owned mining property in Egypt. Their interests were damaged and or sequestrated and they sought compensation from the Respondent Commission. The plaintiffs brought an action for the declaration rejecting their claims was a . .
CitedSecretary of State for Social Security and Another v Harmon and Another CA 5-Jun-1998
. .

Cited by:
CitedA, Regina (on The Application of) v B; Regina (A) v Director of Establishments of the Security Service SC 9-Dec-2009
B, a former senior member of the security services wished to publish his memoirs. He was under contractual and statutory obligations of confidentiality. He sought judicial review of a decision not to allow him to publish parts of the book, saying it . .
CitedChild Maintenance and Enforcement Commission v Gibbons; Same v Karoonian CA 30-Oct-2012
Non-resident parents in each case appealed against suspended orders of imprisonment for non-payment of child support. They argued that the procedures used were indistinguishable from those held to be human rights non-compliant in Mubarak.
Child Support, Magistrates

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.242926

Regina v Felixstowe Justices ex parte Leigh: CA 1987

The court considered the importance of the role played by the media in attending and reporting court proceedings. Watkins LJ said: ‘The role of the journalist and his importance for the public interest in the administration of justice has been commented upon on many occasions. No one nowadays surely can doubt that his presence in court for the purpose of reporting proceedings conducted therein is indispensable. Without him, how is the public to be informed of how justice is being administered in our courts? The journalist has been engaged upon this task in much the same way as he performs it today for well over 150 years. In her work, Justice and Journalism (1974), p. 24, Marjorie Jones, making a study of the influence of newspaper reporting upon the administration of justice by magistrates, stated, having referred to a case decided in 1831:
‘The same ruling that excluded the attorney admitted the newspaper reporter. The journalist entered, and has remained, in magistrates’ courts as a member of the public taking notes. The constant presence of newspaper men in magistrates’ courts provided not only a record of the proceedings but also a means of communication with the public. Through newspaper reports magistrates had access to a wider audience beyond the justice room or the police office. Communication is particularly important for deterrent sentencing, which requires that potential offenders shall be aware of the punishment they are likely to incur.’
In Dickens’ time journalists were the only impartial observers who sat regularly in magistrates’ courts, day after day, week after week, month after month. In the provinces, particularly, the same reporter might often cover the local courts for year after year. These men regarded themselves as representing the absent public. And they were the first to concern themselves with the defence of the defenceless in the summary courts. Lord Denning in The Road to Justice (1955) stated with regard to the free press:
‘A newspaper reporter is in every court. He sits through the dullest cases in the Court of Appeal and the most trivial cases before the magistrates. He says nothing but writes a lot. He notes all that goes on and makes a fair and accurate report of it. He supplies it for use either in the national press or in the local press according to the public interest it commands. He is, I verily believe, the watchdog of justice. If he is to do his work properly and effectively we must hold fast to the principle that every case must be heard and determined in open court. It must not take place behind locked doors. Every member of the public must be entitled to report in the public press all that he has seen and heard. The reason for this rule is the very salutary influence which publicity has for those who work in the light of it. The judge will be careful to see that the trial is fairly and properly conducted if he realises that any unfairness or impropriety on his part will be noted by those in court and may be reported in the press. He will be more anxious to give a correct decision if he knows that his reasons must justify themselves at the bar of public opinion.’ and
‘There is . . no such person known to the law as the anonymous JP.’

Those observations suffice to emphasise to the mind of anyone the vital significance of the work of the journalist in reporting court proceedings and, within the bounds of impartiality and fairness, commenting upon the decisions of judges and justices and their behaviour in and conduct of the proceedings. If someone in the seat of justice misconducts himself or is worthy of praise, is the public disentitled at the whim of that person to know his identity?
It must ever be borne in mind that save upon rare occasions when a court is entitled to sit in camera, it must sit in public. The principle of open justice has been well established for a very long time.’

Watkins LJ
[1987] 1 QB 582
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedNorfolk County Council v Webster and others FD 1-Nov-2006
The claimants wished to claim that they were victims of a miscarriage of justice in the way the Council had dealt with care proceedings. They sought that the proceedings should be reported without the children being identified.
Held: A judge . .
CitedG, Regina (on the Application of) v Nottingham City Council Admn 1-Feb-2008
The respondent authority had removed the child from the mother at birth but without first obtaining any court authority. The court had made a peremptory order for the return of the child. The court explained its actions.
Held: Neither social . .
CitedMohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 4) Admn 4-Feb-2009
In an earlier judgment, redactions had been made relating to reports by the US government of its treatment of the claimant when held by them at Guantanamo bay. The claimant said he had been tortured and sought the documents to support his defence of . .
CitedDoctor A and Others v Ward and Another FD 8-Jan-2010
Parents wished to publicise the way care proceedings had been handled, naming the doctors, social workers and experts some of whom had been criticised. Their names had been shown as initials so far, and interim contra mundum orders had been made . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Magistrates

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.245939

Perinpanathan, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court and Another: CA 4 Feb 2010

The appellant’s daughter had been stopped entering the country with andpound;150,000 in cash. The police sought an order for its forfeiture, suspecting a link with terrorism. The magistrates found no evidence of such, and declined to make the order, but equally refused to award the defendant her costs. She now appealed against the refusal to grant judicial review of that decision.
Held: The appeal failed. Applying the Bradford magistrates case, where that principle applied, the normal order was that no costs should be awarded. The Bradford principle was not limited to licensing cases. It was accepted by all parties that the police suspicion was reasonable, and that they had no choice other than to request forfeiture. They should not be deterred from making such a proper application for fear of a costs award against them.
Stanley Burnton LJ set out the principles derived: ‘(1) As a result of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Baxendale-Walker, the principle in the City of Bradford case is binding on this Court. Quite apart from authority, however, for the reasons given by Lord Bingham LCJ I would respectfully endorse its application in licensing proceedings in the magistrates’ court and the Crown Court.
(2) For the same reasons, the principle is applicable to disciplinary proceedings before tribunals at first instance brought by public authorities acting in the public interest: Baxendale-Walker.
(3) Whether the principle should be applied in other contexts will depend on the substantive legislative framework and the applicable procedural provisions.
(4) The principle does not apply in proceedings to which the CPR appl
(5) Where the principle applies, and the party opposing the order sought by the public authority has been successful, in relation to costs the starting point and default position is that no order should be made.
(6) A successful private party to proceedings to which the principle applies may nonetheless be awarded all or part of his costs if the conduct of the public authority in question justifies it.
(7) Other facts relevant to the exercise of the discretion conferred by the applicable procedural rules may also justify an order for costs. It would not be sensible to try exhaustively to define such matters, and I do not propose to do so.’

Lord Neuburger of Abbotsbury, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Maurice Kay and Lord Justice Stanley Burnton
[2010] EWCA Civ 40, [2010] 1 WLR 1508
Bailii, Times
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 820, Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedBaxendale-Walker v Law Society CA 15-Mar-2007
The solicitor appealed a finding that he had given a reference which he knew to be inappropriate, and his consequential striking off. The tribunal had found his evidence manifestly untrue.
Held: There were no grounds for disturbing the . .
Appeal fromPerinpanathan v City of Westminster Magistrates Court Admn 10-Mar-2009
The claimant had successfully defended a forfeiture case, but had been refused an order for her costs by the magistrates. The magistrates had found that the case had been properly brought under the 2002 Act, even though it had failed.
Held: . .
CitedBradford City Metropolitan District Council v Booth QBD 10-May-2000
The local authority had refused to renew a private hire vehicle licence. That refusal was successfully challenged, and the magistrates had awarded costs on the basis that they should follow the event. The authority appealed.
Held: The . .
CitedRegina v Uxbridge Justices, ex parte Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA 1981
The applicant was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment for handling stolen currency notes from travellers at an airport. The police retained cash from his house, which he claimed. He applied for its return. The police not having opposed the . .
CitedRegina v Totnes Licensing Justices, ex parte Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall QBD 28-May-1990
The court considered the award of costs in a licensing case. Roch J said: ‘There can be no doubt that in civil proceedings between litigants, be it in the High Court or county court, the principle is that costs follow the event. The winning party . .
CitedRegina v Merthyr Tydfil Crown Court, ex parte Chief Constable Dyfed Powys Police QBD 9-Nov-1998
The Chief Constable, on good grounds, objected to the transfer of a justices’ on-licence to a Mrs W. Mrs W appealed and the Chief Constable, having objected to the transfer, became a respondent. On the appeal Mrs W contended that, since the conduct . .
CitedRegina v Stafford Crown Court ex parte Wilf Gilbert (Staffs) Limited Admn 22-Feb-1999
. .
CitedManchester City Council v Manchester Crown Court 2009
The local authority had unsuccessfully sought an anti-social behaviour order. It failed, and the court now considered the award of costs.
Held: The application had been properly made but had failed only because of progress subsequently made in . .
CitedCambridge City Council, Regina (On the Application of) v Alex Nestling Ltd Admn 17-May-2006
. .
CitedRe Southbourne Sheet Metal Co Ltd CA 9-Sep-1992
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had sought orders of disqualification against the director and a co-director under the provisions of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. The Secretary of State’s summons was supported by an . .
CitedBritish Telecommunications Plc v Office of Communications CAT 20 CAT 27-May-2005
The dispute giving rise to the appeal had been between BT and Vodafone, which had supported the Office of Communications. Although BT had been successful, the tribunal refused to award it its costs.
Held: The Tribunal’s Rules conferred an . .
Not authoritativeOrton v Truro Crown Court and Another Admn 21-Jan-2009
An application had been made under section 298 of the 2002 Act for the forfeiture of cash. The application had been dismissed by the magistrates’ court, but they also refused order the defendant’s costs. The police appealed to the Crown Court . .
CitedRe Elgindata Ltd (2) CA 15-Jul-1992
A successful plaintiff who had not been shown to have behaved improperly or unreasonably was not to have his costs reduced or be ordered to pay any part of his opponents costs for having pursued some unsuccessful points. Nourse LJ said that ‘(i) . .
CitedIn re Highfield Commodities Ltd ChD 1985
The court’s discretion in appointing provisional liquidators is unfettered provided it is exercised in a ‘proper judicial manner’. Sir Robert Megarry V-C said: ‘I would respectfully express my complete agreement with the view taken by [the judge]. I . .
CitedKirklees Metropolitan Borough Council v Wickes Building Supplies Ltd HL 1992
A public authority is not required as a rule to give a cross undertaking in damages in a law enforcement action. As to the legal status of the statutory instrument in question, the courts could ‘declare it to be invalid’ if satisfied that the . .
CitedRe Southbourne Sheet Metal Co Ltd CA 9-Sep-1992
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had sought orders of disqualification against the director and a co-director under the provisions of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. The Secretary of State’s summons was supported by an . .
CitedDonald Campbell v Pollak HL 1927
A plaintiff who goes takes his case to trial has no right to costs until an order is made, but if an order is made the court shall order that they follow the event unless in the circumstances of the case some other order should be made. It is only . .
CitedGrimes v Crown Prosecution Service CA 27-Nov-2003
The CPS sought to enforce a confiscation order made by the Crown Court in proceedings against the claimant’s husband. She successfully established that she had been beneficially entitled to a one-half interest in the matrimonial home, and was . .
CitedWalker v Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons PC 21-Nov-2007
The committee allowed the veterinary surgeon’s appeal for his removal from the register, substituting a six months’ suspension. The College opposed his request for his costs.
Held: The costs should be awarded.
Lord Mance said: ‘The Royal . .

Cited by:
CitedWiese v The UK Border Agency Admn 29-Jun-2012
The claimant challenged a decision to seize a sustantial sum of cash being carried by him whilst passing through London City Airport. In the magistrates court, the claimant had objected to the reliance on parts of a customs officer’s statement which . .
CitedLeeds City Council v Leeds District Magistrates and Another Admn 11-Apr-2013
The court had allowed an appeal against a decision of the appellant’s licensing sub-committee refusing a Premises Licence. The Council now appealed against the award of costs, sayin that no reasons had been given.
Held: There were no findings . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Costs

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.396600

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 exercise of comparing previous delays in those cases with the delays in the instant applications, and hard and fast rules should not be sought. Justices should fully examine the applications for delay, their reasons and consequences for the parties. They must decide what is fair in all those circumstances. The divisional Court will only interfere with the exercise of the Justices’ discretion where a refusal will cause substantial unfairness to one of the parties, arising when a defendant cannot present his case. Defendants should not be permitted to frustrate a speedy trial without substantial grounds. Summary justice is speedy justice. This is not merely administrative convenience. Last minute adjournments deprive other defendants of speedy trials when recollections are fresh, and delays cause frustration in Justices. The rulings of the divisional court should not inhibit Justices from refusing repeated applications for adjournments where appropriate.

Lord Justice Bingham,
[1997] EWHC Admin 119, [1998] QB 110, [1997] 2 Cr App R 340, [1997] 2 WLR 854
Bailii
Magistrates Court Act 1980 10(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Macclesfield Justices, ex parte Jones 1983
A defendant who is guilty of deliberately seeking to postpone a trial without good reason has no cause for complaint if his application for an adjournment is refused. . .
CitedRegina v Bolton Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Merna; Regina v Richmond Justices, ex parte Haines 1991
The divisional court should intervene where a defendant has been deprived of a fair opportunity to present his case because of his own unavoidable absence. . .
CitedRegina v Bradford Justices, ex parte Wilkinson 1990
A magistrates’ court should grant a defendant’s application for an adjournment where a witness was absent, and his evidence went to an issue critical to the defence case. . .
CitedRegina v Bristol Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Rowles 1994
A court should grant an adjournment where a party’s witness was unable to attend, and that witness’ evidence was critical for a real issue in the case. Adjournments give rise to a proper sense of frustration in Justices confronted with frequent . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina (A) v Kingsmead School Governors and Another QBD 13-Mar-2002
A permanently excluded pupil sought judicial review of the decision to exclude him. The school resisted saying that since there remained an avenue of appeal, a judicial review was inappropriate. He could still ask for a review of the decision of the . .
CitedRegina (DR) (AM) v St George’s Catholic School and Others, Regina (A) v Kingsmead School Governors and Another CA 13-Dec-2002
The applicants appealed the refusal of judicial review of the refusals of their appeals against exclusion from school.
Held: The Act provided a full appeal procedure from the initial decision of the school’s head teacher, first to the . .
CitedRegina v District Court Martial Sitting at RAF Lyneham (ex parte SAC Wayne Robert James Stoodley) Admn 20-May-1998
The defendant sought certiorari of a refusal of an adjournment of his hearing by the respondent. His defence team had requested an adjournment for a psychiatric report. The court had said such a report would not go as to mens rea.
Held: The . .
CitedStavrinou, 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 . .
CitedRegina v Haringey Justices Employment ex parte Julian Branco Admn 24-Oct-1997
The defendant sought judicial review of his conviction saying that the chairwoman knew his mother and was antipathetic to her, and had shown bias in the trial.
Held: There had been confusion, but no real risk of bias. The review was refused. . .
CitedW, 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.
CitedImbeah, Regina (on The Application of) v Willesden Magistrates’ Court and Another QBD 14-Jul-2016
The claimant applied for judicial review of a decision of a Magistrates Court to convict her of driving with excess alcohol. The grounds were that the district judge acted unlawfully in proceeding with the trial without disclosure by the prosecution . .
CitedWestminster City Council v Owadally and Another Admn 17-May-2017
Defendant must plea to charge, and not counsel
The defendants had, through their barrister, entered pleas of guilty, but the crown court had declared the convictions invalid because this had to have been done by the defendants personally, and remitted the cases and the confiscation proceedings . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Judicial Review

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.137064

AB and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Huddersfield Magistrates’ Court and Another: Admn 10 Apr 2014

The claimants challenged the lawfuness of search warrants issued by the respondent court. They were solicitors, and were related to a person suspected of murder who was thought to have fled the country. The officers were looking for evidence that they had assisted the escape.
Held: The warrants had been issued unlawfully. They had been poorly phrased and would not allow the claimants to identify just what was subject to the warrant. It was not sufficiently limited.

Rafferty LJ, Stuart-Smith J
[2014] EWHC 1089 (Admin)
Bailii
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 8
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedCronin, Regina (on The Application of) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and Another Admn 20-Nov-2002
The applicant had had his premises searched. He sought to challenge the basis on which search warrant had been granted. He argued that under the Convention, it was necessary for the magistrates to provide a written record of the reasons for granting . .
CitedPower-Hynes and Another v Norwich Magistrates’ Court and Another Admn 26-Jun-2009
The claimant accountant sought the quashing of a search warrant granted by the respondent to the police.
Held: The warrant failed to comply with s. 15(6)(b) of PACE and was invalid. . .
CitedStanford International Bank Ltd, Re CA 25-Feb-2010
Hughes LJ said: ‘it is essential that the duty of candour laid upon any applicant for an order without notice is fully understood and complied with. It is not limited to a duty not to misrepresent. It consists in a duty to consider what any other . .
CitedRegina (Austen and others) v Chief Constable of Wiltshire Admn 2011
. .
CitedVan Der Pijl and Another v The Crown Court At Kingston Admn 21-Dec-2012
The claimants challenged search warrants and the seizure of materials under the warrants.
Held: The Court emphasised the need for precision within the warrant itself. . .
CitedS, F and L, Regina (on The Application of) v Chief Constable of The British Transport Police and Another Admn 20-Jun-2013
The claimants, solicitors, challenged search warrants issued against their homes and professional premises.
Held: The court considered the proper procedure to be used when the police wish to search the premises or homes of solicitors for . .
CitedMengesha v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis Admn 18-Jun-2013
The claimant was an observer at a demonstration in central London. Along with others she was detained within a police cordon. She was told she would not be released until she allowed herself to be photographed. This was done in an aggressive and . .

Cited by:
See AlsoAB and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Huddersfield Magistrates’ Court Admn 4-Jul-2014
The claimant solicitors had successfully challenged search warrants issued by the respondents and been awarded their costs. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Magistrates

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.523657

Weightman v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 6 Mar 2007

Magistrates to identify reasons for finding guilt

The defendant appealed agains his conviction under section 172 of the 1988 Act. He had been abroad when his car attracted the speeding fine, but had been unable to identify which iof the several people who might have driven it, had done so.
Held: The decision of the magistrates left the defendant unable to identify the reasoning of the magistrates: ‘the oral judgment fails to explain in any satisfactory way why the statutory defence was rejected. That amounted to an error of law. That being so, and in the light of my earlier holding that the crown court’s decision appeared to be Wednesbury unreasonable in that there were no recorded facts on which the decision was based, I would hold that the appeal must be allowed.’

Smith LJ, Gross J
[2007] EWHC 634 (Admin), [2007] RTR 565
Bailii
Road Traffic Act 1988 172(3)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedMarshall v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 17-Jun-2015
A car was seen speeding. Husband and wife each said that they did not know who was driving it in response to notices requiring that information. Mrs M now appealed against her conviction under section 172. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Magistrates

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.251159

Regina v Manchester Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Hill; Hill v Anderton: HL 1982

The House was asked whether section 127 was satisfied where the information was laid within 6 months from the date of the alleged offence but was not considered by a magistrate, and no summons was issued, until after the expiration of the time limit. The House also considered the power of delegation where a justice of the peace or the clerk did not personally receive or consider the information in question.
Held: It was satisfied.
Lord Roskill said: ‘My Lords, perusal of these and other sections which I have not thought it necessary to set out, make two matters abundantly clear. First, in the criminal jurisdiction, what magistrates’ courts have jurisdiction to try summarily is an information, and what is required to give them that jurisdiction is that an information has been laid before them . . Their jurisdiction in criminal cases does not depend on a summons or a warrant being issued and their civil jurisdiction does not depend upon a summons being issued. As to the former, as was pointed out in argument, where a defendant is brought before a magistrates’ court next morning, there is neither a summons nor a warrant. He is charged. The information is thus laid before the magistrates’ court at the latest when the charge is read in open court, and in practice, often earlier when, no doubt, the clerk to the justices, or his or her subordinate, is informed by the police of the charge which it is proposed to bring against the defendant later that morning . . My Lords, it is of crucial importance to appreciate that the laying of an information is a matter for the prosecution just as the making of a complaint is a matter for the complainant. In each case it is for the prosecutor or the complainant to decide how the information or how the complaint shall be formulated. I agree with the Divisional Court in the present cases that the commencement of criminal proceedings lies in the hands of the prosecutor. It is, in my opinion, the prosecutor’s duty, if he wishes to prosecute, to prepare and lay the information before the magistrates’ court, which means a justice of the peace or the clerk to the justices . . Accordingly, once the information has been received at the office of the clerk to the justices, which today in most cases is likely to be at the magistrates’ court house, the information will, in my view, have been laid. No more is required of the prosecutor to launch the intended criminal proceedings . . it is the laying of an information . . which is the foundation of the magistrates’ court’s jurisdiction to try an information summarily . . and not the issue of any summons which may or may not follow the laying of an information or the making of a complaint.’

Lord Roskill
[1983] 1 AC 328, [1982] 3 WLR 331, (1982) 146 JP 348, [1982] 2 All ER 963, [1982] Crim LR 755, (1982) 75 Cr App R 346, [1982] 2 All ER 963
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 127
England and Wales
Citing:
ApprovedRegina v Hughes 1879
Baron Huddleston said that: ‘objections and defects in the form of procuring the appearance of a party charged will be cured by appearance.’
Hawkins J said: ‘The information, which is in the nature of an indictment, of necessity precedes the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.197894

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 failed in this, and the magistrate having failed in his own duty to address such a failure, the summons was quashed.
As to the threshold test for the issuance of a summons: ‘(1) The magistrate must ascertain whether the allegation is an offence known to the law, and if so whether the essential ingredients of the offence are prima facie present; that the offence alleged is not time-barred; that the court has jurisdiction; and whether the informant has the necessary authority to prosecute.
(2) If so, generally the magistrate ought to issue the summons, unless there are compelling reasons not to do so – most obviously that the application is vexatious (which may involve the presence of an improper ulterior purpose and/or long delay); or is an abuse of process; or is otherwise improper. . . (4) Whether the applicant has previously approached the police may be a relevant circumstance.’

Gross LJ, Sweeney J
[2018] EWHC 1233 (Admin), [2018] WLR(D) 319, [2018] 2 Cr App R 27, [2018] 4 WLR 91, [2018] Crim LR 855, [2018] LLR 560
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina (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 . .

Cited by:
CitedJohnson 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.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.618111

Doughty v Ely Magistrates’ Court and Another: Admn 7 Mar 2008

The claimant sought judicial review. He practised giving evidence as to the operation of traffic speed cameras. The defendant magistrates had declined to accept his evidence saying that he was not an expert.
Held: ‘Whether someone is competent to give expert evidence has to be determined not on a generalised basis but as a focussed question by the court in which the evidence is sought to be given, by reference to the specific issues to which the evidence relates and on the basis of the specific information available to the court as to the witness’s knowledge and expertise.’ The decision was unreasonable, and a review granted. The manufacturer held courses only open to law enforcement officers, and therefore precluded attendance by those who might give evidence for drivers.

[2008] EWHC 522 (Admin)
Bailii
Citing:
ApprovedRegina v Bonython 1984
(South Australia Supreme Court) The court considered the basis for deciding whether a proposed witness was an expert.
Held: It is for the judge to determine whether a witness is competent to give evidence as an expert and for that purpose . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.266234

Powys County Council v Hurst: Admn 4 Jul 2018

Pension not attachable for Council Tax arrears

Recovery of unpaid council tax – whether pension was ‘earnings’ for attachment of earnings order.
Held: The council’s appeal succeeded. The pension was not available to be attached, and it had exhausted all alternatives to committal.

Hickinbottom, Singh LJJ
[2018] EWHC 1684 (Admin), [2018] WLR(D) 413
Bailii, WLRD
Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992
England and Wales

Rating, Magistrates

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.619004

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 by the defendant’s officers. He now pursued a private prosecution.
Held: The review was granted. The issue of a summons involves the exercise of a judicial discretion. The use of proceedings to satisfy an ulterior motive can amount to an abuse, which can be stayed at a later point. In this case there was no evidence of the Chief Constable’s personal involvement at any stage in or near the actions complained of. There is, in general, no doctrine of criminal vicarious liability at common law. This case did not fall with any of the three exceptions. ‘[T]o pursue, a case which was . . hopelessly misconceived, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court, is to be guilty of the kind of serious misconduct which amply merits, indeed requires, the exercise by the Magistrates’ Court of its power to stay proceedings as an abuse of the process.’

Munby LJ, Keith J
[2010] EWHC 935 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedLondon Borough of Newham, Regina (on the Application of) v Stratford Magistrates’ Court Admn 12-Oct-2004
. .
CitedRegina v Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court ex parte Fiona Watts Admn 8-Feb-1999
The defendant sought to have dismissed as an abuse of proces charges against her that as an officer of Customs and Excise prosecuting the now private prosecutor, she had committed various offences.
Held: The magistrate was vested with . .
CitedRoberts v Chief Constable of Cheshire Constabulary CA 26-Jan-1999
The claimant had been detained at 11.25pm. His detention was not reviewed by an inspector until 7.45am the next morning, although it had been considered in the interim at 1.45am by an officer of junior rank. The plaintiff sued for unlawful . .
CitedRegina v Rahman CACD 1985
False imprisonment is a common law offence, defined as consisting in ‘the unlawful and intentional or reckless restraint of a victim’s freedom of movement from a particular place. In other words it is unlawful detention which stops the victim moving . .
CitedRegina v Stephens 1866
The court was asked whether the owner of a slate quarry was answerable for a public nuisance caused by his workmen without his knowledge and contrary to his general orders.
Held: Mellor J: ‘It is quite true that this in point of form is a . .
CitedRegina (on the Applications of Salubi and Another) v Bow Street Magistrates Court Admn 10-May-2002
The several applicants had been accused of offences under which the cases were to be transferred direct to the Crown Court for trial. The charges were later amended, with alternative offences preferred for which similar procedures might be and were . .
CitedRegina v Hutchins CACD 1988
The defendant was at a party where he took a range of drugs. He was accused of attacking one girl, and then imprisoning another with a neighbour. He appealed against his convictions for unlawful imprisonment and kidnapping.
Held: The appeal . .
CitedRex v Huggins and Barnes KBD 1730
Gaoler – Murder of Prisoner by Lack of Care
The defendant Huggins was warden of the Fleet Prison. A prisoner, Arne, died in 1725. Barnes, a gaoler had put him in a room ‘without fire, chamber-pot or close-stool, the walls being damp and unwholesome, and the room built over the common sewer’. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Vicarious Liability, Magistrates

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.408832

Ex parte Lewis (The Trafalgar Square Case): QBD 2 Jul 1888

L sought to assert a right to hold public meetings in Trafalgar Square.
Held: (obiter) There was no public right to occupy Trafalgar Square for the purpose of holding public meetings. The Commissioners of Works and Public Buildings (in whom the care, control, management and regulations of the Square was vested) had power to prohibit the holding of such meetings there.
The Commissioners of Works and Public Buildings (in whom the care, control, management and regulations of Trafalgar Square is vested) have power to prohibit the holding of meetings on it, and there was no general right on the part of the public to occupy Trafalgar Square for the purpose of holding public meetings.
Wills J said that an assembly ‘to the detriment of others having equal rights [is] in its nature irreconcilable with the right of free passage.’ and ‘The only ‘dedication’ in the legal sense that we are aware of is that of a public right of passage, of which the legal description is a ‘right for all Her Majesty’s subjects at all seasons of the year freely and at their will to pass and repass without let or hindrance.’ A claim on the part of persons so minded to assemble in any numbers, and for so long a time as they please to remain assembled, upon a highway, to the detriment of others having equal rights, is in its nature irreconcilable with the right of free passage, and there is, so far as we have been able to ascertain, no authority whatever in favour of it . . Things are done every day, in every part of the kingdom, without let or hindrance, which there is not and cannot be a legal right to do, and not unfrequently are submitted to with a good grace because they are in their nature incapable, by whatever amount of user, of growing into a right’.
As to the issue of a summons by the magistrates: ”Nothing can be clearer or more settled than that if the justices have really and bona fide exercised their discretion, and brought their minds to bear upon the question whether they ought to grant the summons or not, this court is no court of appeal from the justices, and has no jurisdiction to compel them to exercise their judgment in a particular way.’

Wills J, Grantham J
(1888) 21 QBD 191, [1888] UKLawRpKQB 135
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Jones and Lloyd HL 4-Mar-1999
21 people protested peacefully on the verge of the A344, next to the perimeter fence at Stonehenge. Some carried banners saying ‘Never Again,’ ‘Stonehenge Campaign 10 years of Criminal Injustice’ and ‘Free Stonehenge.’ The officer in charge . .
CitedJones and Lloyd v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 23-Jan-1997
The appellants had been peacefully protesting at Stonehenge. They were among others who refused to leave when ordered to do so under an order made by the police officer in charge declaring it to be a trespassory assembly under the 1986 Act. They . .
CitedKotegaonkar v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Another Admn 19-Jul-2012
The court was asked: ‘can a way which is not connected to another public highway, or to some other point to which the public have a right of access, itself be a public highway?’ A path had been registered over part of te claimant’s land, but with no . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Torts – Other, Magistrates

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.192187

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 should at the very least ascertain: (1) whether the allegation is of an offence known to the law and if so whether the essential ingredients of the offence are prima facie present; (2) that the offence alleged is not ‘out of time’; (3) that the court has jurisdiction; (4) whether the informant has the necessary authority to prosecute. In addition to these specific matters it is clear that he may and indeed should consider whether the allegation is vexatious: see Rex v Bros.
Since the matter is properly within the magistrate’s discretion it would be inappropriate to attempt to lay down an exhaustive catalogue of matters to which consideration should be given. Plainly he should consider the whole of the relevant circumstances.’ and
‘In the overwhelming majority of cases the magistrate will not need to consider material beyond that provided by the informant. In my judgment, however, he must be able to inform himself of all relevant facts. Mr Woolf, who appeared as amicus curiae, and to whom the court is indebted for his assistance, submitted that the magistrate has a residual discretion to hear a proposed defendant if he felt it necessary for the purpose of reaching a decision.We would accept this contention.
The magistrate must be able to satisfy himself that it is a proper case in which to issue a summons. There can be no question, however, of conducting a preliminary hearing. Until a summons has been issued there is no allegation to meet; no charge has been made. A proposed defendant has no locus standi and no right at this stage to be heard. Whilst it is conceivable that a magistrate might seek information from him in exceptional circumstances it must be entirely within the discretion of the magistrate whether to do so.’

Lord Widgery CJ
[1979] 1 WLR 933
England and Wales
Citing:
ApprovedRegina v Bros 1902
A magistrate should consider, before issuing a summons, whether it appears to be vexatious. . .
CitedRegina v Wilson QBD 1957
‘The principle that, once the summing up is concluded, no further evidence ought to be given, must be maintained in every case, and, if further evidence is allowed at that stage, . . the conviction will be quashed.’ The court considered the nature . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina 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: . .
CitedAugusto Pinochet Ugarte and In the Matter of an Application for Leave To Move for Judicial Review Regina v Evans (Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate) Admn 28-Oct-1998
A provisional warrant had been issued by a magistrate for the arrest of the former president of Chile when visting London. The arrest had been in response to an extradition request from a judge in Spain and related to allegations of criminal acts by . .
CitedJones 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 . .
CitedRegina v Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court ex parte Fiona Watts Admn 8-Feb-1999
The defendant sought to have dismissed as an abuse of proces charges against her that as an officer of Customs and Excise prosecuting the now private prosecutor, she had committed various offences.
Held: The magistrate was vested with . .
CitedCharlson, 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 . .
ApprovedGreen, Regina (on the Application of) v The City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court, Thoday, Thompson Admn 5-Dec-2007
The claimant appealed from the refusal by the magistrate to issue summonses for the prosecution for blashemous libel of the Director General of the BBC and the producers of a show entitled ‘Jerry Springer – The Opera.’
Held: The gist of the . .
CitedPercy, Regina (on the Application of) v Corby Magistrates’ Court Admn 7-Feb-2008
The claimant sought judicial review of a decision of the magistrates not to issue summonses against two police officers. She had been demonstrating near a US base, but had refused to intervene and allowed a US officer to unlawfully arrest and detain . .
CitedScopelight 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 . .
CitedBrowning v Lewes Crown Court and RSPCA Admn 24-Apr-2012
The claimant appealed against the refusal by the respondent to state a case regarding its conviction of the claimant of offences under the 2006 Act.
Held: In view of the case of Perkins, the application failed save that the Crown Court should . .
CitedBall 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, Criminal Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.237556

Rex v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy: KBD 9 Nov 1923

Clerk wrongly retired with Justices

There had been a prosecution before the lay magistrates for dangerous driving. Unknown to the defendant and his solicitors, the Clerk to the Justices was a member of the firm of solicitors acting in a civil claim against the defendant arising out of the accident that had given rise to the prosecution. The Clerk retired with the Justices, who returned to convict the Defendant. On learning of the Clerk’s provenance, the Defendant applied to have the conviction quashed. The Justices swore affidavits stating that they had reached their decision to convict the Defendant without consulting their Clerk.
Lord Hewart CJ said: ‘It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the notes of the evidence in case the justices might desire to consult him, the justices came to a conclusion without consulting him, and that he scrupulously abstained from referring to the case in any way. But while that is so, a long line of cases shows that it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The question therefore is not whether in this case the deputy clerk made any observation or offered any criticism which he might not properly have made or offered; the question is whether he was so related to the case in its civil aspect as to be unfit to act as clerk to the justices in the criminal matter. The answer to that question depends not upon what actually was done but upon what might appear to be done. Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice. Speaking for myself, I accept the statements contained in the justices’ affidavit, but they show very clearly that the deputy clerk was connected with the case in a capacity which made it right that he should scrupulously abstain from referring to the matter in any way, although he retired with the justices; in other words, his one position was such that he could not, if he had been required to do so, discharge the duties which his other position involved. His twofold position was a manifest contradiction. In those circumstances I am satisfied that this conviction must be quashed, unless it can be shown that the applicant or his solicitor was aware of the point that might be taken, refrained from taking it, and took his chance of an acquittal on the facts, and then, on a conviction being recorded, decided to take the point. On the facts I am satisfied that there has been no waiver of the irregularity, and, that being so, the rule must be made absolute and the conviction quashed.’
Lush J said: ‘It must be clearly understood that if justices allow their clerk to be present at their consultation when either he or his firm is professionally engaged in those proceedings or in other proceedings involving the same subject matter, it is irrelevant to inquire whether the clerk did or did not give advice and influence the justices. What is objectionable is his presence at the consultation, when he is in a position which necessarily makes it impossible for him to give absolutely impartial advice. I have no doubt that these justices did not intend to do anything irregular or wrong, but they have placed themselves in an impossible position by allowing the clerk in those circumstances to retire with them into their consultation room. The result, there being no waiver, is that the conviction must be quashed.’

Lord Hewart CJ Lush, Sankey JJ
[1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER Rep 233, [1923] EWHC KB 1
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) HL 15-Jan-1999
A petition was brought to request that a judgment of the House be set aside because the wife of one their lordships, Lord Hoffmann, was as an unpaid director of a subsidiary of Amnesty International which had in turn been involved in a campaign . .
ExplainedRegina v Inner West London Coroner Ex Parte Dallaglio, and Ex Parte Lockwood Croft CA 16-Jun-1994
A coroner’s comment that the deceased’s relative was ‘unhinged’ displayed a bias which was irreparable. ‘The description ‘apparent bias’ traditionally given to this head of bias is not entirely apt, for if despite the appearance of bias the court is . .
CitedRegina v Camborne Justices ex parte Pearce QBD 1954
The applicant had been convicted by the Justices on charges of offences under the Food and Drugs Act 1938 which had been brought under the authority of the Health Committee of the Cornwall County Council. The Clerk to the Justices was a councillor . .
CitedIn Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 2); Director General of Fair Trading v Proprietary Association of Great Britain and Proprietary Articles Trade Association CA 21-Dec-2000
The claimants alleged that a connection between a member of the Restrictive Practices Court, who was to hear a complaint and another company, disclosed bias against them. She had not recused herself.
Held: When asking whether material . .
CitedRegina v Gough (Robert) HL 1993
The defendant had been convicted of robbery. He appealed, saying that a member of the jury was a neighbour to his brother, and there was therefore a risk of bias. This was of particular significance as the defendant was charged with conspiracy with . .
CitedRegina v Abdroikof, Regina v Green; Regina v Williamson HL 17-Oct-2007
The House was asked whether a jury in criminal trials containing variously a Crown Prosecution Service solicitor, or a police officer would have the appearance of bias. In Abdroikof, the presence of the police officer on the jury was discovered only . .
CitedRegina v Khan and Hanif CACD 14-Mar-2008
Each defendant appealed against his conviction saying that the presence on the jury of certain people involved in the law gave the appearance of bias.
Held: The court should be made aware if any potential juror either is or has been a police . .
CitedAl Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others SC 13-Jul-2011
The claimant pursued a civil claim for damages, alleging complicity of the respondent in his torture whilst in the custody of foreign powers. The respondent sought that certain materials be available to the court alone and not to the claimant or the . .
CitedLocabail (UK) Ltd, Regina v Bayfield Properties Ltd CA 17-Nov-1999
Adverse Comments by Judge Need not be Show of Bias
In five cases, leave to appeal was sought on the basis that a party had been refused disqualification of judges on grounds of bias. The court considered the circumstances under which a fear of bias in a court may prove to be well founded: ‘The mere . .
CitedLiaw v Lee (Recognition of Divorce) FD 3-Jun-2015
The applicant sought that the decrees nisi and absolute of divorce issued by the High Court of Malaya at Shah Alam in favour of the respondent husband be refused recognition in England and Wales.
Held: The application was granted: ‘the husband . .
CitedAmeyaw v McGoldrick and Others QBD 6-Jul-2020
Recusal Refused – former Pupil Master
Request for recusal – the judge was said to have been a member of the same chambers as counsel for the claimant and had been his mentor.
Held: Refused: ‘It was untenable to contend that there was an appearance of bias in circumstances where . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Natural Justice, Magistrates

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.183301

Rhodes-Presley, Regina (on the Application of) v South Worcestershire Magistrates’ Court: Admn 9 Oct 2008

In convicting the defendant, the magistrates announced that they had done so on the balance of probabilities. At a later hearing magistrates sought to set aside the decision and relist the case for a new hearing. They refused to state a case. The defendant sought judicial review.
Held: Magistrates did not have power of their own motion to order a re-trial.

Ouseley J
[2008] EWHC 2700 (Admin)
Bailii
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 142(2)
England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.277928

Regina v Camborne Justices ex parte Pearce: QBD 1954

The applicant had been convicted by the Justices on charges of offences under the Food and Drugs Act 1938 which had been brought under the authority of the Health Committee of the Cornwall County Council. The Clerk to the Justices was a councillor member of the Council, but he did not serve on the Health Committee. An apparent bias was alleged against the Clerk. The Solicitor General, Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller, QC as amicus submitted that the correct test was whether or not there was a ‘real likelihood’ of bias, that is ‘something to which a person in possession of such facts as are readily available to him would take exception to’.
Held: The court found that the clerk had been asked to advise on the law only. As to the test of bias ‘a real likelihood of bias must be made to appear not only from the materials in fact ascertained by the party complaining, but from such further facts as he might readily have ascertained and easily verified in the course of his inquiries.’ and ‘The frequency with which allegations of bias have come before the courts in recent times seems to indicate that Lord Hewart’s reminder in the Sussex Justices case that it ‘is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done’ is being urged as a warrant for quashing convictions or invalidating orders upon quite unsubstantial grounds and, indeed, in some cases upon the flimsiest pretexts of bias. Whilst indorsing and fully maintaining the integrity of the principle reasserted by Lord Hewart, this court feels that the continued citation of it in cases to which it is not applicable may lead to the erroneous impression that it is more important that justice should appear to be done than that it should in fact be done.’ However: ‘There is no doubt that any direct pecuniary interest, however small, in the subject of inquiry, does disqualify a person from acting as a judge in the matter . .’
The court refused an application made on behalf of the justices for their costs to be paid by the solicitor who acted for the applicant. The 1872 Act gave the justices the right to file an affidavit in reply to the evidence of the applicant, and as there was no allegation of misconduct against the justices there was no need for them to have been represented by counsel. ‘It is, of course, clear that any direct pecuniary or proprietary interest in the subject-matter of a proceeding, however small, operates as an automatic disqualification.’

Slade J, Goddard LJ
[1954] 2 All ER 850, [1955] 1 QB 41
Review of Justices’ Decisions Act 1872 3
England and Wales
Citing:
ApprovedRegina v Rand 1866
r_rand1866
A judge with an interest in a case, or is a party to it, will be debarred from hearing it.
Blackburn J said: ‘There is no doubt that any direct pecuniary interest, however small, in the subject of inquiry, does disqualify a person from acting . .
CitedRex v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy KBD 9-Nov-1923
Clerk wrongly retired with Justices
There had been a prosecution before the lay magistrates for dangerous driving. Unknown to the defendant and his solicitors, the Clerk to the Justices was a member of the firm of solicitors acting in a civil claim against the defendant arising out of . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina on the Application of Davies (No 2) v HM Deputy Coroner for Birmingham CA 27-Feb-2004
The claimant appealed against a costs order. She had previously appealed against an order of the High Court on her application for judicial review of the inquest held by the respondent.
Held: The coroner, and others in a similar position . .
CitedLocabail (UK) Ltd, Regina v Bayfield Properties Ltd CA 17-Nov-1999
Adverse Comments by Judge Need not be Show of Bias
In five cases, leave to appeal was sought on the basis that a party had been refused disqualification of judges on grounds of bias. The court considered the circumstances under which a fear of bias in a court may prove to be well founded: ‘The mere . .
CitedIn Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 2); Director General of Fair Trading v Proprietary Association of Great Britain and Proprietary Articles Trade Association CA 21-Dec-2000
The claimants alleged that a connection between a member of the Restrictive Practices Court, who was to hear a complaint and another company, disclosed bias against them. She had not recused herself.
Held: When asking whether material . .
CitedRegina v Gough (Robert) HL 1993
The defendant had been convicted of robbery. He appealed, saying that a member of the jury was a neighbour to his brother, and there was therefore a risk of bias. This was of particular significance as the defendant was charged with conspiracy with . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Natural Justice

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.194531

British Sky Broadcasting Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis: SC 12 Mar 2014

The court was asked as to the powers of Magistrates hearing an application for a search warrant to receive excluded or special procedure material which had not been disclosed to the respondent. The court had overturned an order made by the district judge. The police were investigating suspected leaks by armed forces officers of materials from the Cabinet Security Committee. The officers had now been cleared.
Held: The Commissioner’s appeal failed. In general, the court should not apply the Al Rawi principle to an application made by a party to litigation (or prospective litigation) to use the procedural powers of the court to obtain evidence for the purposes of the litigation from somebody who is not a party or intended party to the litigation. Such an application will not ordinarily involve the court deciding any question of substantive legal rights as between the applicant and the respondent. Rather it is an ancillary procedure designed to facilitate the attempt of one or other party to see that relevant evidence is made available to the court in determining the substantive dispute. Applications of this kind, such as an application for a witness summons in civil or criminal proceedings, are typically made ex parte.
An application for a production order creates a lis between the person making the application and the person against whom it is made, which may later arise between the police and the suspected person through a criminal charge. Equal treatment of the parties requires that each should know what material the other is asking the court to take into account in making its decision and should have a fair opportunity to respond to it. That is inherent in the concept of an ‘inter partes’ hearing. It was not permissible for the judge to adopt the course described.

Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson
[2014] UKSC 17, [2014] 2 All ER 705, [2014] EMLR 18, [2014] WLR(D) 123, [2014] 2 WLR 558, [2014] 1 AC 885, [2014] 2 All ER 705, [2014] Crim LR 620, UKSC 2012/0115
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC Summary, SC
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 8, Official Secrets Act 1989 1
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromBritish Sky Broadcasting Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The Central Criminal Court and Another Admn 21-Dec-2011
The claimant challenged a production order made by the magistrates in respect of journalists’ material. They complained that the application had used secret evidence not disclosed to it, and that the judge had not given adequate reasons to support . .
CitedRegina v Leicester Crown Court ex parte DPP 1987
The police had applied for an order granting access to an accused’s bank account. The Judge ruled that the application should be made inter partes. The Director of Public Prosecutions sought judicial review of that ruling. By the time the case came . .
CitedRegina v Lewes Crown Court ex parte Hill 1991
Bingham LJ said: ‘The Police and Criminal Evidence Act governs a field in which there are two very obvious public interests. There is, first of all, a public interest in the effective investigation and prosecution of crime. Secondly, there is a . .
CitedRegina v Davis HL 18-Jun-2008
The defendant had been tried for the murder of two men by shooting them at a party. He was identified as the murderer by three witnesses who had been permitted to give evidence anonymously, from behind screens, because they had refused, out of fear, . .
CitedMalik v Manchester Crown Court and others; Re A Admn 19-Jun-2008
The claimant was a journalist writing about terrorism. He had interviewed a man with past connections with Al-Qaeda, and he now objected to a production order for documents obtained by him in connecion with his writings. The court had acted on . .
CitedAl Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others SC 13-Jul-2011
The claimant pursued a civil claim for damages, alleging complicity of the respondent in his torture whilst in the custody of foreign powers. The respondent sought that certain materials be available to the court alone and not to the claimant or the . .

Cited by:
CitedHaralambous, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Court at St Albans and Another SC 24-Jan-2018
The appellant challenged by review the use of closed material first in the issue of a search warrant, and subsequently to justify the retention of materials removed during the search.
Held: The appeal failed. No express statutory justification . .
CitedHaralambous v St Albans Crown Court and Another Admn 22-Apr-2016
This judicial review raised for express decision whether a person whose premises have been searched and whose property seized under a search warrant must have enough information grounding the warrant to judge its lawfulness and the retention of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Natural Justice, Criminal Practice, Police

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.522381

Coxon v Manchester City Magistrates Court: Admn 11 Mar 2010

The defendant sought judicial review of the magistrate’s refusal to state a case for an appeal against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol, saying that the intoximeter used had not received type approval as required. The defendant’s expert had been unable to say that the version used differed sufficiently, and the District Judge had rejected his conclusion as speculation.
Held: The review was refused. The District Judge was required to make a broad common sense assessment of whether the device remained approved despite differences. He had applied the correct test, and ‘He concluded that the claimant had not raised any evidence that the device was not of an approved type. That meant that the appellant had not discharged the evidential burden. In my view, the District Judge having found that there was no evidence that the device fell outside type approval, an application to state a case on that premise would have been, indeed, frivolous.’
Cranston J said: ‘type approval is concerned with description. The issue is whether a device meets the description set out in the schedule. That is a separate issue from reliability or quality. Description means the essence or identity of the device. That is a broad common sense test. It will turn very much on the build and function of a device and the circumstances in which type approval is given. The issue then arises whether collateral attributes of the device go to its description affecting, in other words, its essence or identity so that the device can no longer be regarded as of that description. Even if a specific manufacturer is part of a type approval, that may not be part of its description because it is not part of its essence or identity. Similarly, with the modification of the device the issue is whether the modification is such that the device no longer matches the description in the type approval. That demands a common sense judgment as to whether the build and function of the device is such that it still has, in fact, the essence or identity of the device specified in the type approval.’

Leveson J, Cranston J
[2010] EWHC 712 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedBrown v Procurator Fiscal, Falkirk HCJ 24-Sep-2002
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He said that the machine used to measure the alcohol in his breath did not have type approval. The schedule to Approval 1998 for the purposes of section 7(1)(a) of the . .
CitedBreckon v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 22-Aug-2007
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol.
Held: There was no requirement that the prosecutor should produce the results of the roadside breath test in evidence, and the breathalyser was of the approved . .
CitedFearnley v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 10-Jun-2005
The defendant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He said that the machine used to measure his breath alcohol was not of the type approved by the Secretary of State.
Held: There was a presumption that the Intoximeter used . .
CitedRichardson v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 20-Feb-2003
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol, saying that the device used to make the measurement did not have type approval.
Held: The appeal failed. Stanley Burnton J considered the issue of type approval of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Magistrates

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.408626

Harper and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Aldershot Magistrates Court: Admn 8 Jun 2010

Police defendants not to have addresses withheld

The defendants, senior police officers were accused of misconduct in public office, being said to have sought improperly to interfere in prosecutions for speeding. They appealed against refusal by the magistrates to have their addresses protected.
Held: The appeal failed. The burden was on the claimants to establish good reason for departing from the principle of open justice. They had not met that burden: ‘If there is a risk, it would not in the circumstances be enhanced by publication of addresses. On the information the claimants give, any approach to them is likely to be a targeted one which would not be deterred by the need to discover a home address. While the charges against the claimants are serious, they are unlikely to provoke that response by vigilantes which occasionally occurs in some categories of offence, for example, charges involving abuse of young children.’

Pill LJ, Rafferty J
[2010] EWHC 1319 (Admin), (2010) 174 JP 410
Bailii
Contempt of Court Act 1981 11
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Malvern Justices, Ex parte Evans 1988
The circumstances in which it is appropriate for a court to allow a name or other names to be withheld are rare. The Court cannot derogate from this principle for lesser purposes, including that of sparing the feelings of a defendant. . .
CitedRegina v Evesham Justices, ex parte McDonnagh QBD 1988
The court considered the existence of a power in the magistrates court to order a hearing to be held in camera and referred to section 11 of the 1981 Act. Watkins LJ said: ‘However, I am bound to say that I am impressed with the argument that the . .
CitedScott v Scott HL 5-May-1913
Presumption in Favour of Open Proceedings
There had been an unauthorised dissemination by the petitioner to third parties of the official shorthand writer’s notes of a nullity suit which had been heard in camera. An application was made for a committal for contempt.
Held: The House . .
CitedAttorney-General v Leveller Magazine Ltd HL 1-Feb-1979
The appellants were magazines and journalists who published, after committal proceedings, the name of a witness, a member of the security services, who had been referred to as Colonel B during the hearing. An order had been made for his name not to . .
CitedTrinity Mirror and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v Croydon Crown Court CACD 1-Feb-2008
The defendant had pleaded guilty in the Crown Court to 20 counts of making or possessing child pornography. No direction was made for withholding the defendant’s identity in court, but the Crown Court made an order in the interest of the defendant’s . .
CitedRegina v Newtonabbey Magistrates Court Ex Parte Belfast Telegraph Newspapers Ltd CANI 27-Aug-1997
When the defendant charged with indecent assault was remanded on bail to await trial, the magistrate ordered that there should be no report of the proceedings at that stage because of the defendant’s concerns that publicity would lead to his being . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Police, Media

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.416458

Mills v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 3 Dec 2008

The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving whilst disqualified, saying that they had had insufficient evidence that he was such. It was not disputed that he was driving. Previous convictions for the same offence had been entered, but the details did not show the sentences imposed, no certificate of disqualification was entered, and it was not formally admitted. The magistrates had said that they relied on answers of ‘no comment’ given at interview.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The prosecution must prove to the criminal standard that the person accused was a disqualified driver, and secondly it can be proved by any admissible means, such as an admission — even a non-formal one by the accused — that he was a disqualified driver. It was wholly inappropriate for the magistrates to have drawn any inference from the lack of comment on the part of the appellant. It is not as if he subsequently relied on any fact or matter which gave rise to the opportunity of drawing the adverse inference from the failure to answer the question.

Scot Baker LJ, Maddison J
[2008] EWHC 3304 (Admin), (2009) 173 JP 157, [2009] RTR 12
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 101(1)(d)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedPattison v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 15-Dec-2005
The court considered the circumstances under which evidence of previous convictions could be admitted against a defendant where he did not admit that he was the same person. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Magistrates, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.293959

Prasannan v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea: Admn 25 Feb 2010

The appellant challenged an order to pay costs summarily assessed at andpound;20,000.
Held: The order was not a penalty and was within the discretion of the district judge. The appeal failed.
[2010] EWHC 319 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Highgate Justices ex parte Petrou QBD 1954
The Appellant was the owner of premises which she let to another party for use as a club. The other party was charged with 10 offences relating to the supply of liquor at the premises and the Appellant was joined to show cause why the club should . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 October 2021; Ref: scu.401867

Regina v Reading Crown Court, Ex parte Hutchinson: QBD 1988

A defendant to a charge brought under a byelaw is entitled to raise the question of the validity of that byelaw in criminal proceedings before magistrates or the Crown Court, by way of defence. There was nothing in the statutory basis of the jurisdiction of the justices which precluded their considering a challenge to the validity of a byelaw. ‘Coming to London to the High Court is inconvenient and expensive. Byelaws are generally local laws which have been made for local people to do with local concerns. Magistrates’ courts are local courts and there is one in every town of any size in England. The cost of proceedings in a magistrates’ court are far less than in the High Court. I believe this egalitarian aspect of seeking recourse to the law in a magistrates’ court to be an important sign of the availability of justice for all.’
Lloyd J
[1988] QB 384
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedKruse v Johnson QBD 16-May-1898
The validity of a by-law prohibiting the playing of music in a public place within fifty yards of any dwelling after being requested by a constable or resident of that dwelling to desist was upheld. A private citizen taxed with a criminal charge . .

Cited by:
CitedBoddington v British Transport Police HL 2-Apr-1998
The defendant had been convicted, under regulations made under the Act, of smoking in a railway carriage. He sought to challenge the validity of the regulations themselves. He wanted to argue that the power to ban smoking on carriages did not . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.187072

North Wales Police v Anglesey Justices: CA 16 Jul 2008

A dog bit a constable. The defendant said that the police had wrongly begun proceedings as an information, rather than by way of a complaint, and that they were a nullity.
Held: Rule 2.1 of the 1981 Rules is expressed in terms which show that the use of statutory forms is not mandatory, and embody an untechnical approach. The initiating document referred to a complaint and not an information, and that was what it was. The application for leave to appeal out of time was refused since the appeal had no merit.
May LJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 920
Bailii
Dogs Act 1871 2, Magistrates’ Courts (Forms) Rules 1981 2.1
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Hughes 1879
Baron Huddleston said that: ‘objections and defects in the form of procuring the appearance of a party charged will be cured by appearance.’
Hawkins J said: ‘The information, which is in the nature of an indictment, of necessity precedes the . .
CitedRegina v Nottingham Justice, ex parte Brown 1960
Proceedings which were begun incorrectly by the laying of an information rather than a complaint as required were a nullity. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 October 2021; Ref: scu.272241

The Local Board Of Health For The District Of Wakefield, The West Riding And Grimsby Railway Company; Regina v Rawson The Younger, Esq, And Another, Justices Of The West Riding Of Yorkshire: QBD 11 Nov 1865

The Railway Clauses Consolidation Act (8 Vict. c. 20), s. 3, enacts that ‘justice’ shall mean ‘a justice acting for the county, and co, in which the matter requiring the cognizance of such justice shall arise, and who shall not he interested in the matter ‘
Held: that the latter part of the definition is merely declaratory of the common law, and does not confine the jurisdiction given by different sections of the act to a justice of the county, and co., not being interested; and, therefore, where, on the hearing of a complaint under section 58, an objection to a justice on the ground of interest is waived by the parties, the justice has jurisdiction, and the objection of want of jurisdiction cannot afterwards be raised.
[1865] EngR 726, (1865) 6 B and S 794, (1865) 122 ER 1386, (1865-1866) LR 1 QB 84, [1865] UKLawRpKQB 13
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 29 September 2021; Ref: scu.281638

Platinum Crown Investments Ltd v North East Essex Magistrates Court: Admn 24 Oct 2017

Application by prosecutor to amend name of defendant company but after time limit for issue.
Treacy LJ, Dove J
[2017] EWHC 2761 (Admin), [2018] 4 WLR 11, [2018] 1 Cr App R 25, [2017] WLR(D) 738, [2018] Crim LR 252, [2018] LLR 108, [2018] CTLC 31, (2018) 182 JP 104
Bailii, WLRD
Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 123(1)
England and Wales

Updated: 25 September 2021; Ref: scu.599395

Baxter v Chief Constable of West Midlands: Admn 6 May 1998

The defendant appealed against refusal of bail after a hearing held in her absence. She was thought to have tuberculosis, and had been spitting at people from her cell. No solicitor could be found to represent her. The magistrates had thought that her sputum was infectious.
Held: In the circumstances the magistrates had been justified: ‘The only guidance that I would be inclined to give is to say that when on a bail application, a person is legally represented and the magistrates form the view that there is a risk that the applicant for bail is suffering from a highly infectious disease, the magistrates are entitled to exclude that applicant from the hearing.’
Schiemann LJ
[1998] EWHC Admin 487
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 23 September 2021; Ref: scu.138608

Garrett v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police: QBD 15 Jul 2020

The defendant had seized a dog after a biting incident. They sought its destruction. The owner said that they were out of time. The court was asked whether the time ran from the biting incident or the seizure.
Held: The owner’s appeal failed.
Carr LJ, Robin Knowles J
[2020] EWHC 1866 (QB), [2020] WLR(D) 418
Bailii, WLRD
Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 127(1), Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
England and Wales

Updated: 14 September 2021; Ref: scu.652801

Regina v Leicester City Justices, ex parte Barrow: CA 1 Aug 1991

The appellant challenged a community charge liability order in which justices had refused an application made on his behalf for a friend to be allowed to sit with him to give advice and assistance. He sought judicial review. The Divisional Court had refused review.
Held: The appeal succeeded. ‘A party to proceedings has a right to present his own case and in so doing to arm himself with such assistance as he thinks appropriate, subject to the right of the court to intervene . . if a party arms himself with assistance in order the better himself to present his case, it is not a question of seeking the leave of the court. It is a question of the court objecting and restricting him in the use of this assistance, if it is clearly unreasonable in nature or degree or if it becomes apparent that the ‘assistance’ is not being provided bona fide, but for an improper purpose or is being provided in a way which is inimical to the proper and efficient administration of justice by, for example, causing the party to waste time, advising the introduction of irrelevant issues or the asking of irrelevant or repetitious questions.’ The court expressed its hope that as regards the term ‘McKenzie Friend’: ‘the fervent hope . . that we shall hear no more of ‘McKenzie friends’ as if they were a form of unqualified legal assistant known to the law.’ Such terminology obscures the real issue which is fairness or unfairness. Let the term ‘McKenzie friend’ join the ‘Piltdown man’ in decent obscurity.’
On the facts ‘I cannot be sure that the applicants were not prejudiced and accordingly I have no doubt that the justices’ order should be quashed.’
Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR said: ‘It is important to appreciate that in this case we are not concerned with rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation. Rights to conduct litigation are not relevant to proceedings on a summons claiming a community charge liability order, whilst the applicants’ right of audience as parties to the proceedings has never been called into question and neither they nor Mr John sought any right of audience for him. The applicants’ case came on for hearing at a time when, for good reason, the court was closed to the general public, other than representatives of the press, and the applicants, represented by Ms Jones, rightly sought (and needed) the leave of the justices to enable Mr John to enter the court. The reason put forward by Ms Jones was that the applicants wished Mr John to assist them in presenting their cases to the court by taking notes, quietly making suggestions to the applicants and giving the applicants advice.
The justices’ refusal to allow Mr John to enter the court may well have aggrieved Mr John, but he is not a party to these proceedings. In so far as he has a legitimate grievance, it could only be on the basis that he was a member of the public who wanted to be a spectator in court, for, not having a right of audience on behalf of the applicants, he personally had no other right. The applicants are in a different position. They have a right to be heard in their own defence. Fairness, which is fundamental to all court proceedings, dictates that they shall be given all reasonable facilities for exercising this right and, in case of doubt, they should be given the benefit of that doubt for courts must not only act fairly, but be seen to act fairly. The real issue in this appeal is whether the Leicester City justices acted fairly and were seen to act fairly in the circumstances of this case. That they sought to do so in a difficult situation is not in doubt, but they may not have succeeded. References to ‘McKenzie Friends’ and still more to a ‘right to a McKenzie Friend’ mislead, because they suggest that someone who seeks to assist a litigant in person has a special status akin to, if less than, that of one who has a right to audience or a right to conduct litigation. The ‘McKenzie Friend’ does not exist at all as such and has neither status nor rights. The only right is that of the litigant and his right is to reasonable assistance which can take many forms.’
Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR
[1991] 2 QB 260
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedMcKenzie v McKenzie CA 10-Jul-1970
Mr McKenzie was a litigant in person who wished to be assisted by a young Australian barrister, gratuitously, in the conduct of his case by sitting beside the husband in Court and prompting him. The hearing was in open Court . The friend’s conduct . .
ApprovedRe G (Chambers Proceedings: McKenzie friend) CA 10-Jul-1991
A proposed McKenzie friend was a solicitor who was to be paid, but did not wish to be on the record. H appealed a refusal to allow him to be present in chambers. The Judge had taken the view that the proceedings were of a highly confidential nature . .

Cited by:
CitedO and others (Children); In re O (Children), In re W-R (a Child), In re W (Children) CA 22-Jun-2005
In each case litigants in person had sought to be allowed to have the assistance and services of a Mackenzie friend in children cases. In one case, the court had not allowed confidential documents to be disclosed to the friend.
Held: The . .
CitedRegina v Horseferry Road Justices ex parte Hillier Admn 9-Oct-1998
Challenge to conviction based upon evidence as to contents of evidence bags where there was a discontinuity in its custody. Counsel complained that he had been badgered by the stipendiary magistrate into revealing his defence in advance.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 September 2021; Ref: scu.227948

Regina v Llanidloes Licensing Justices ex parte Davies: 1957

Justices appeared by counsel on an appeal to resist, unsuccessfully, an application to set aside an order they had made in relation to the extension of licensing hours.
Held: Ordering them to pay the applicant’s costs: ‘If the justices appear in the Divisional Court they make themselves parties to the lis. They take the risk of being ordered to pay costs, and they are entitled to receive costs if they succeed in defeating the application. I have been trying to remind justices all over the country, not only in court, but in addresses I have given to them, of their rights under the Review of Justices’ Decisions Act, 1872. That Act was passed for the very purpose of allowing justices, against whom certiorari or mandamus was moved, to put in affidavits (on which they do not have to pay any stamp duty) giving their reasons, so that the court could decide the case on the affidavits; but if justices insist on instructing counsel to come before the court and argue the case, they are making themselves parties to a lis and will have to pay costs. At one time this court very rarely ordered costs, and I think the reason was that the Act of 1872 was overlooked; but for at least three years now I have been trying to remind justices of the presence of this Act on the Statute Book, and if they are not content with exercising the power Parliament has given them, but insist on appearing and arguing the case, they will have to pay costs if they lose. The justices in the present case have made themselves parties before this court and opposed the application, and the applicant is entitled to costs against them.’
Lord Goddard CJ
[1957] 1 WLR 809
Review of Justices’ Decisions Act 1872 3
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina on the Application of Davies (No 2) v HM Deputy Coroner for Birmingham CA 27-Feb-2004
The claimant appealed against a costs order. She had previously appealed against an order of the High Court on her application for judicial review of the inquest held by the respondent.
Held: The coroner, and others in a similar position . .
CitedRegina v Newcastle Under Lyme Magistrates Court Ex Parte Massey and Others QBD 7-Oct-1994
Guidance was given on orders for payment of costs by justices who found themselves respondents to judicial review proceedings. Justices who refused consent to quash a committal and failing to appear may be subject to such orders. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 September 2021; Ref: scu.194532

Allen v London Borough of Ealing: Admn 20 Apr 2021

Appeal by way of case stated from Ealing Magistrates Court in a private prosecution brought by the Appellant against the Respondent in relation to an alleged statutory nuisance of mice infestation at the property she rents from the Council.
Lord Justice Popplewell
[2021] EWHC 948 (Admin), [2021] 1 WLR 3305
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 16 August 2021; Ref: scu.661944

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. The House was asked whether a magistrate being requested to issue a warrant under the 1983 Act for a place of safety order, had the power to require the police officer executing the warrant to be accompanied by a named social worker or mental health worker.
Held: The intention under the 1983 Act had been to reduce the requirements for a warrant. The issue was not what was implied into the constable’s power to execute the warrant, but what was implied into the magistrate’s power to grant it. The attachment of the names was outdated, and was simply a nullity without vitiating the warrant. ‘Far from its being necessary to limit the powers granted by the warrant in this way, that purpose is more likely to be achieved if the powers are not cut down by insisting that named people be present, or by allowing the magistrate to impose other limitations, however ‘sensible’ they may seem at the time.’ The arrest had therefore been lawful though unaccompanied, and the action failed. The warrant request had been completed ineptly. There was nothing to indicate that the magistrate had applied his mind to the names shown on the request. The use of the procedure was severly circumscribed by the Act. The claimant’s distress was understandable, but his claim failed.
Lord Steyn, Lord Hutton, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell
[2005] UKHL 32, Times 09-May-2005, [2006] 1 AC 23, [2005] 2 WLR 1114
Bailii, House of Lords
Mental Health Act 1983 135, Mental Deficiency Act 1913 15(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedAttorney General and Another v Great Eastern Railway Company HL 27-May-1880
An Act of Parliament authorised a company to construct a railway. Two other companies combined and contracted with the first to supply rolling stock. An injunction was brought to try to restrain this, saying that such a contract was not explicitly . .
Appeal FromWard 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 . .
CitedBodden v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis 1990
A magistrate’s power to order the detention of someone who wilfully interrupted the proceedings of the court includes ‘all incidental powers necessary to enable the court to exercise the jurisdiction in a judicial manner’, and specifically in this . .
CitedWinterwerp v The Netherlands ECHR 24-Oct-1979
A Dutch national detained in hospital complained that his detention had divested him of his capacity to administer his property, and thus there had been determination of his civil rights and obligations without the guarantee of a judicial procedure. . .

Cited by:
Appealed toWard 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 . .
CitedFarstad Supply As v Enviroco Ltd SC 6-Apr-2011
The court was asked by the parties to a charterparty whether one of them is an ‘Affiliate’ of the charterer for the purposes of provisions in a charterparty by which both the owner and the charterer agreed to indemnify and hold each other harmless . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 August 2021; Ref: scu.224576

Regina (McCann and Others) v Manchester Crown Court: CA 9 Mar 2001

Proceedings applying for an anti-social behaviour order, were properly civil proceedings, with civil standards of evidence, and the Human Rights Act provisions relating to criminal proceedings, were not applicable either. The section included acts which might be the subject of criminal charges, but might not, and orders in civil proceedings might themselves have consequences equal in severity to criminal proceedings. Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR said: ‘Many injunctions in civil proceedings operate severely upon those against whom they are ordered. In matrimonial proceedings a husband may be ordered to leave his home and not to have contact with his children. Such an order may be made as a consequence of violence which amounted to criminal conduct. But such an order is imposed not for the purpose of punishment but for protection of the family. This demonstrates that, when considering whether an order imposes a penalty or punishment, it is necessary to look beyond its consequence and to consider its purpose.’
Lord Phillips MR
Times 09-Mar-2001, [2001] 1 WLR 1084, [2001] EWCA Civ 281
Bailii
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 1, European Convention on Human Rights 6
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromRegina v Manchester Crown Court, ex parte McCann and others QBD 22-Nov-2000
An application for an anti-social behaviour order against an individual was a civil, not a criminal proceeding. The standard of evidence required was on the balance of probability; the civil standard. Such proceedings were not subject to the . .
Appealed toClingham (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 . .
CitedProprietary Articles Trade Association v Attorney-General for Canada PC 1931
The Board was asked how to identify whether an allegation amounted to a criminal one. Lord Atkin said: ‘It appears to their Lordships to be of little value to seek to confine crimes to a category of acts which by their very nature belong to the . .
CitedEx parte Alice Woodhall CA 8-May-1888
Extradition proceedings are in their nature criminal proceedings. Lindley LJ said: ‘Can we say that the application in the present case is not an application in a criminal cause or matter? I think that in substance it certainly is. Its whole object . .
CitedAmand v Home Secretary and Minister of Defence of Royal Netherlands Government HL 1943
A Dutch serviceman who had been arrested for desertion and brought before a magistrate who ordered him to be handed over to the Dutch military authorities under the Allied Forces Act 1940. An application for habeas corpus was rejected by a . .
DistinguishedCustoms and Excise Commissioners v City of London Magistrates’ Court QBD 2000
Access orders were sought by the Customs and Excise against banks to facilitate an investigation into the affairs of taxpayers and the issue was whether the resulting proceedings constituted ‘criminal proceedings’ within the meaning of section . .
CitedEngel And Others v The Netherlands (1) ECHR 8-Jun-1976
engel_netherlandsECHR1976
The court was asked whether proceedings in a military court against soldiers for disciplinary offences involved criminal charges within the meaning of Article 6(1): ‘In this connection, it is first necessary to know whether the provision(s) defining . .
CitedB v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary QBD 5-Apr-2000
The defendant appealed the making of a sex offender order under 1998 Act. The justices had found that the defendant was a sex offender within section 2(1)(a) and that he had acted on a number of occasions in a way which brought him within section . .
CitedOzturk v Germany ECHR 21-Feb-1984
A minor infringement may be the subject of a criminal charge: ‘If the Contracting States were able at their discretion, by classifying an offence as ‘regulatory’ instead of criminal, to exclude the operation of the fundamental clauses of Articles 6 . .
CitedSteel and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 23-Sep-1998
The several applicants had been arrested in different circumstances and each charged with breach of the peace contrary to common law. Under the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, the court can bind over a Defendant to keep the peace, if the Defendant . .
CitedLauko v Slovakia ECHR 2-Sep-1998
The applicant was fined under the domestic Minor Offences Act for accusing his neighbours, without justification, of causing a nuisance. The government relied on the modesty of the punishment capable of being imposed and the fact that the offence . .
CitedBenham 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 by:
CitedRegina v Moore, Kerr, Haroon CACD 5-Oct-2001
The applicants challenged the procedures under which, having been found unfit to plead by proceedings under the section, they were then found to have committed the acts forming the offences. The defendants were unable to put forward any case in . .
CitedGough and Another v Chief Constable of Derbyshire CA 20-Mar-2002
The appellants challenged the legality under European law of orders under the Act restricting their freedom of movement, after suspicion of involvement in football violence.
Held: Although the proceedings under which orders were made were . .
Appeal fromClingham (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 . .
CitedPort Regis School Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Gillingham and Shaftesbury Agricultural Society Admn 5-Apr-2006
Complaint was made that the decision of a planning committee had been biased because of the presence on the committee of two freemasons, and where the interests of another Lodge were affected.
Held: The freemasonry interests had been declared. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.85986

Haralambous, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Court at St Albans and Another: SC 24 Jan 2018

The appellant challenged by review the use of closed material first in the issue of a search warrant, and subsequently to justify the retention of materials removed during the search.
Held: The appeal failed. No express statutory justification existed, but equally there was no restriction on the use of such materials in what was an ex parte procedure.
The statutory scheme of PACE and the CJPA itself permits the relevant magistrate or court to have regard to material which cannot on public interest grounds be disclosed to a person affected by a warrant or order. It involves a purely ex parte process, directed to premises, rather than any particular person, and is designed to be operated speedily and simply, on information provided by a constable satisfying a magistrate that there are reasonable grounds for believing the matters stated in section 8(1). There is nothing in the statutory scheme which expressly restricts the information on which the magistrate may act. Parliament made no express provision for the information on which the warrant was sought to take any particular form or to be disclosed, even after the issue of the warrant, to any person affected.
Police had to be candid with the Magistrate, but a requirement that all such material be disclosed to the subject of the investigation would be inhibitive.
Lord Mance, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Hughes, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones
[2018] UKSC 1, [2018] Crim LR 672, [2018] Lloyd’s Rep FC 71, [2018] 2 All ER 303, [2018] AC 236, [2018] 2 WLR 357, [2018] 1 Cr App R 26, [2018] WLR(D) 35, UKSC 2016/0130
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 08112017 am Video, SC 08112017pm video
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 111 113(4), Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 59
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromHaralambous v St Albans Crown Court and Another Admn 22-Apr-2016
This judicial review raised for express decision whether a person whose premises have been searched and whose property seized under a search warrant must have enough information grounding the warrant to judge its lawfulness and the retention of the . .
CitedCarnduff v Inspector Rock and Chief Constable West Midlands Police CA 11-May-2001
The claimant was a police informer. Over several years he had given and been paid for information. He claimed that on one occasion he had given information which had led to the arrest of a major criminal, but the police denied that any information . .
CitedAl Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others SC 13-Jul-2011
The claimant pursued a civil claim for damages, alleging complicity of the respondent in his torture whilst in the custody of foreign powers. The respondent sought that certain materials be available to the court alone and not to the claimant or the . .
CitedCronin, Regina (on The Application of) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and Another Admn 20-Nov-2002
The applicant had had his premises searched. He sought to challenge the basis on which search warrant had been granted. He argued that under the Convention, it was necessary for the magistrates to provide a written record of the reasons for granting . .
CitedEnergy Financing Team Ltd and others v The Director of the Serious Fraud Office, Bow Street Magistrates Court Admn 22-Jul-2005
The claimants sought to set aside warrants and executions under them to provide assistance to a foreign court investigating alleged unlawful assistance to companies in Bosnia Herzegovina.
Held: The issue of such a warrant was a serious step. . .
CitedGittins v Central Criminal Court Admn 14-Jan-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of decisions to issues search warrants to HMRC in respect of his premises. HMRC wanted to look for evidence of tax avoidance schemes which it thought might be unlawful. Until the morning of the hearing, HMRC . .
CitedCommissioner of Police for The Metropolis v Bangs Admn 3-Mar-2014
Where the police were objecting to the disclosure to a person affected of information relied upon before a magistrate to obtain a search and seizure warrant, the magistrates’ court was not functus officio, and any challenge to the withholding was an . .
CitedBritish Sky Broadcasting Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 12-Mar-2014
The court was asked as to the powers of Magistrates hearing an application for a search warrant to receive excluded or special procedure material which had not been disclosed to the respondent. The court had overturned an order made by the district . .
CitedGolfrate Property Management Ltd and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Crown Court At Southwark and Another Admn 25-Mar-2014
The claimants sought to have set aside search and seizure warrants obtained to further enquiries into suspected breaches of EU sanctions against ZANU-PF of Zimbabwe. They alleged non-disclosure and misrepresentation.
Held: A decision to claim . .
CitedThe Competition and Markets Authority v Concordia International Rx (UK) Ltd ChD 16-Nov-2017
The Authority had obtained and executed a search warrant against the defendant’s premises, but now sought to restrain disclosure of the materials upon which it had obtained that warrant, asserting Public Interest Immunity.
Held: An application . .
CitedEntick v Carrington KBD 1765
The Property of Every Man is Sacred
The King’s Messengers entered the plaintiff’s house and seized his papers under a warrant issued by the Secretary of State, a government minister.
Held: The common law does not recognise interests of state as a justification for allowing what . .
CitedRegina v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex parte Rossminster Ltd HL 13-Dec-1979
The House considered the power of an officer of the Board of Inland Revenue to seize and remove materials found on premises which a warrant obtained on application to the Common Serjeant authorised him to enter and search; but where the source of . .
CitedConway v Rimmer HL 28-Feb-1968
Crown Privilege for Documents held by the Polie
The plaintiff probationary police constable had been investigated, prosecuted and cleared of an allegation of theft. He now claimed damages for malicious prosecution, and in the course of the action, sought disclosure of five documents, but these . .
CitedLeander v Sweden ECHR 26-Mar-1987
Mr Leander had been refused employment at a museum located on a naval base, having been assessed as a security risk on the basis of information stored on a register maintained by State security services that had not been disclosed him. Mr Leander . .
CitedMichalak v General Medical Council and Others SC 1-Nov-2017
Dr M had successfully challenged her dismissal and recovered damages for unfair dismissal and race discrimination. In the interim, Her employer HA had reported the dismissal to the respondent who continued their proceedings despite the decision in . .
CitedRegina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, Ex parte T C Coombs and Co HL 1991
The House heard an application judicially to review a notice served by an inspector of taxes under section 20 of the 1970 Act, requiring T C Coombs and Co to deliver or make available for inspection documents in their possession relevant to the tax . .
CitedEsbester v United Kingdom ECHR 2-Apr-1993
(Commission) The claimant had been refused employment within the Central Office of Information. He had been accepted subject to clearance, but that failed. He objected that he had been given no opportunity to object to the material oin which his . .
CitedBank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC 19-Jun-2013
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . .
CitedAttorney General v Danhai Williams and others PC 12-May-1997
(Jamaica) Customs investigating officers on attended the appellant’s premises in the course of an investigation of fraudulent importation. The officers were met by a hostile crowd, and the claimant did not attend for interview as invited. A search . .
CitedHome Office v Tariq SC 13-Jul-2011
(JUSTICE intervening) The claimant pursued Employment Tribunal proceedings against the Immigration Service when his security clearance was withdrawn. The Tribunal allowed the respondent to use a closed material procedure under which it was provided . .
CitedKadi v Commission ECFI 30-Sep-2010
ECFI Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban – Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 – . .
CitedRegina v Davis HL 18-Jun-2008
The defendant had been tried for the murder of two men by shooting them at a party. He was identified as the murderer by three witnesses who had been permitted to give evidence anonymously, from behind screens, because they had refused, out of fear, . .
CitedKennedy v United Kingdom ECHR 18-May-2010
The claimant complained that after alleging unlawful interception of his communications, the hearing before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal was not attended by appropriate safeguards. He had been a campaigner against police abuse. His requests to . .
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v AF AN and AE (No 3) HL 10-Jun-2009
The applicants complained that they had been made subject to non-derogating control orders as suspected terrorists, but that the failure to inform them of the allegations or evidence against them was unfair and infringed their human rights. The . .
CitedStanford International Bank Ltd, Re CA 25-Feb-2010
Hughes LJ said: ‘it is essential that the duty of candour laid upon any applicant for an order without notice is fully understood and complied with. It is not limited to a duty not to misrepresent. It consists in a duty to consider what any other . .

Cited by:
CitedThe Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) v Concordia International Rx (UK) Ltd CA 7-Aug-2018
The Authority had obtained a search warrant on an ex parte application. The defendant sought a rehearing, but the Authority sought to rely upon material for which it now asserted public interest immunity in material already used. At first instance, . .
CitedThe Competition and Markets Authority v Concordia International Rx (UK) Ltd ChD 8-Nov-2018
Whether to appoint special advocate. The Authority wished to pursue an investigation relying upon material for which it asserted Public Interest Immunity. . .
CitedThe Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) v Concordia International Rx (UK) Ltd ChD 12-Dec-2018
Challenge to search warrants issued under the 1998 Act. . .
CitedThe Competition and Markets Authority v Concordia International Rx (UK) Ltd ChD 16-Jan-2019
Application to vary search warrant.
Held: Refused. . .
CitedBelhaj and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another SC 4-Jul-2018
Challenge to decision not to prosecute senior Intelligence Service officials for alleged offences in connection with his unlawful rendition and mistreatment in Libya. The issue here was whether on the hearing of the application for judicial review, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.603120

C, Regina (on the Application Of) v Grimsby and Cleethorpes Magistrates Court: Admn 28 Jul 2004

A magistrates court having made a decision as to whether or not to decline jurisdiction may not revisit that decision.
[2004] EWHC 2240 (Admin)
Bailii
Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 &
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCrown 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.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.226892

N and R, Re Application for Judicial Review: QBNI 8 Dec 2005

The Official Solicitor as next friend of a child N and a child R both of whom are subjects of pending Care Order proceedings before a Family Proceedings Court issued by a Community Hospital Trust seeks the following relief:
(i) A declaration that the learned Resident Magistrate hearing this case had no jurisdiction to make an Order of 22 June 2005 ordering that the guardian ad litem make disclosure of her notes of conversations with the mother of these children and with the children themselves to the mother and to the other parties in the proceedings .
(ii) Further, or in the alternative, if the learned Resident Magistrate did have jurisdiction to make the said Order for disclosure, a declaration that he erred in law in exercising his discretion to order disclosure against the guardian ad litem (‘gal’) to the extent that he did or at all.
(iii) An Order of Certiorari to remove into this Honourable court and quash the said decision.
(iv) An Order of Mandamus to compel the learned Resident Magistrate to consider the application for disclosure according to law.
[2005] NIQB 75
Bailii
Northern Ireland

Updated: 28 July 2021; Ref: scu.239074

W (A Minor), Regina (on The Application of) v Leeds Crown Court: Admn 28 Jul 2011

The Claimant aged 14 appeared before the Magistrates’ Court with a 20 year old Co-Defendant. The Magistrates declined jurisdiction in his case and the Claimant indicated Not Guilty pleas. The Magistrates concluded that it was in the interest of justice for the Claimant to be committed alongside the adult under Section 24(1)(b) of the Magistrates Courts Act 1990 and both Defendants were therefore committed under Section 6 (2) of the 1980 Act to the Crown Court. In the Crown Court the adult Defendant pleaded guilty and his case was accordingly adjourned for sentence. The Claimant pleaded not guilty and it was submitted on his behalf that as the effective link with the adult had been broken, his case should be remitted to the Youth Court for trial. The Crown Court Judge concluded he had no power to do so. He now sought judicial review.
Held: Youth Courts are a specialist subset of the Magistrates Court and a Court of Summary Jurisdiction constituted in accordance with section 4 of The Children and Young Persons Act 1933, as subsequently amended. They sit for the purpose of hearing any charge against a child or a young person or for the purpose of exercising any other jurisdiction conferred on the Youth Courts by or under any Act.
Sir Anthony May P said: ‘There are, I think in theory at least, two possible approaches. The first would be to identify a plain legislative oversight and read the legislation so as to supply an omitted provision which Parliament must have intended but failed by mistake to provide. The second possibility might be to resort to Section 3 of the The Human Rights Act 1998 so as to read the legislation in a way that is compatible with the convention. There is no suggestion in the present case that there might be a declaration of incompatibility, but for my part I think the Claimant’s advisors were right not to press the Human Rights Act route. An over ingenious human rights lawyer might make something of a case for an infringement here of Article 6, or conceivably Article 8, of the European Convention on Human Rights, but the reality is the Claimant would get a fair trial in the Crown Court, and that is accepted. It is only that it would be strongly preferable for policy reasons if he were in the Youth Court’.
Sir Anthony May P QBD, Langstaff J
[2011] EWHC 2326 (Admin), [2012] Crim LR 160, [2012] ACD 8, [2012] 1 WLR 2786, [2012] 1 Cr App R 13, (2011) 175 JP 467
Bailii
Magistrates Courts Act 1990 24(1)(b), Magistrates Courts Act 1980 6(2), Children and Young Persons Act 1933 4
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedZN and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Bromley Youth Court Admn 9-Jul-2014
The applicants, both aged 16, sought permission to bring judicial review of a decision to commit thme for trial at the adult Crown Court on theft charges along with a co-defendant adult (though 18).
Held: Permission was granted.
Hayden J . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 July 2021; Ref: scu.443636

Guraj, Regina v: SC 14 Dec 2016

The defendant had pleaded to charges of possession of drugs with intent to supply. He was sentenced, but then the prosecutor was 14 months’ late serving its notice with regard to the confiscation order under section 16. The crown now appealed against the defendant’s successful appeal from the confiscation order as made.
Held: The judge had applied the correct test, and: ‘In this case it is not suggested that any unfairness at all has befallen the defendant in consequence of the irregularities which occurred. There was no obstacle to the making of the confiscation order, and it ought to have been made. The Crown’s appeal must be allowed and the order restored.’
Confiscation orders are enforced by the magistrates as if they were Crown Court fines.
Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes, Sir Declan Morgan
[2016] UKSC 65, [2016] WLR(D) 673, [2017] Lloyd’s Rep FC 117, [2017] 1 WLR 22, [2017] 1 Cr App R (S) 32, [2017] Crim LR 320, UKSC 2015/0152
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 16, Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Soneji and Bullen HL 21-Jul-2005
The defendants had had confiscation orders made against them. They had appealed on the basis that the orders were made more than six months after sentence. The prosecutor now appealed saying that the fact that the order were not timely did not . .
CitedRegina v Keith Ross CACD 13-Mar-2001
The defendant having pleaded guilty to a serious drugs offence now appealed a confiscation order. He claimed that he had been misled that the prosecution would not request an inquiry for this purpose, and during the course of the hearing the . .
CitedPalmer, Regina v CACD 11-Oct-2002
The defendant appealed against a very substantial confiscation order. The prosecution had served notices under sections 71 and 72(1), but the section 72(1) notice was invalid. The judge allowed a second notice to be served, and the case to be . .
CitedRegina v Knights and Another HL 21-Jul-2005
The defendants had been convicted of offences involving dealing with goods on which customs duty had not been paid. After conviction a timetable was set for sentencing and for confiscation proceedings. The House considered the making of the . .
Appeal fromGuraj, Regina v CACD 6-Mar-2015
The defendant appealed against a confiscation order made on his plea to charges of possession of drugs with intent to supply. The Crown had served its statement under section 16 of the 2002 Act, but it was 14 months’ late. . .
CitedRegina v Donohoe CACD 28-Jul-2006
The defendant appealed against the making of a confiscation order, saying that the court had erred in the procedure for forfeiting drugs.
Held: The appeal failed. The section contained an express prohibition against making both a forfeiture . .
CitedRegina v Iqbal; Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office (RCPO) v Iqbal CACD 3-Feb-2010
The RCPO appealed against refusal of permission to continue their application for a confiscation order. The defendant had been convicted of conspiracy to supply class A drugs, but said that the application was now out of time.
Held: The appeal . .
CitedCrown Prosecution Service v Neish CACD 6-May-2010
The defendant faced confiscation proceedings. The judge gave instructions to the listing office to give a later date for the hearing. The defendant said that the delay took the case out of the court’s jurisdiction to make an order.
Held: The . .
CitedWaya, Regina v SC 14-Nov-2012
The defendant appealed against confiscation orders made under the 2002 Act. He had bought a flat with a substantial deposit from his own resources, and the balance from a lender. That lender was repaid after he took a replacement loan. He was later . .
CitedRegina v Johal CACD 19-Apr-2013
The defendant appealed against a confiscation order made on his conviction for possession of a Class B controlled drug. There had been considerable delays in the completion of the process, and it had exceeded the two year limit. The appellant argued . .

Cited by:
CitedMcCool, Regina v SC 2-May-2018
The appellants complained that the recovery order made against them in part under the transitional provisions were unlawful. They had claimed benefits as single people but were married to each other and for a house not occupied. The difficulty was . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 July 2021; Ref: scu.572397

Brookes v Retail Credit Cards Ltd: QBD 1986

The defendants, a regulated consumer credit provider provided its srevices to A’s customers. A’s promotional materials were found to be in breach of the Act and the defendant was now prosecuted for procuring that offence.
Held: The prosecutor’s appeal against dismissal failed. Obiter, section 170(1) might, but did not necessarily, preclude an action. Lloyd LJ said: ‘The exclusion of civil sanctions other than those provided in the Act serves an obvious purpose. Exclusion of criminal sanctions is not so easy to understand. Whatever the reason for the exclusion and whatever it was intended to cover, I am clear that it does not exclude the liability of accessories’.
Lloyd LJ
(1986) CCLR 5, (1987) CLR 327
Consumer Credit Act 1974 170(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina v Kettering Magistrates’ Court ex parte MRB Insurance Brokers Limited Admn 4-Apr-2000
A statement of an APR in the sale of a financial services product remained a price indication, and, if it was miscalculated, that was a misleading price indication, and criminal, despite provisions in the Consumer Credit legislation. What was given . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 July 2021; Ref: scu.430075

Regina v Hughes: 1879

Baron Huddleston said that: ‘objections and defects in the form of procuring the appearance of a party charged will be cured by appearance.’
Hawkins J said: ‘The information, which is in the nature of an indictment, of necessity precedes the process; and it is only after the information is laid, that the question as to the particular form and nature of the process can properly arise. Process is not essential to the jurisdiction of the justices to hear and adjudicate. It is but the proceeding adopted to compel the appearance of the accused to answer the information already duly laid, without which no hearing in the nature of a trial could take place (unless under special statutory enactment).’
Baron Huddleston, Hawkins J
(1879) 4 QBD 614
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedNorth Wales Police v Anglesey Justices CA 16-Jul-2008
A dog bit a constable. The defendant said that the police had wrongly begun proceedings as an information, rather than by way of a complaint, and that they were a nullity.
Held: Rule 2.1 of the 1981 Rules is expressed in terms which show that . .
ApprovedRegina v Manchester Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Hill; Hill v Anderton HL 1982
The House was asked whether section 127 was satisfied where the information was laid within 6 months from the date of the alleged offence but was not considered by a magistrate, and no summons was issued, until after the expiration of the time . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 July 2021; Ref: scu.272264

Hoque and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs: Admn 13 Mar 2013

The claimant sought judicial review of warrants issued at the request of the respondent, saying that they failed to comply with the requirements of section 15, and that no magistrate could reasonably have been satisfied that section 8 had been complied with.
Held: ‘ anyone reading the warrant could not ascertain the limits of Mr Blackwell’s authority to search for and seize objects which he deemed to be relevant. The investigation could, so far as the occupier was concerned, have comprised and embraced anything within the powers of HMRC to investigate. There is, it seem to me, a further flaw in the warrants as issued. It is the responsibility of the justice of the peace to apply the access criteria of section 8(1)(a)-(e). Section 8 does not permit the justice of the peace to delegate to the constable the very responsibility which the justice of the peace is exercising under section 8(1). On the contrary, the evidence submitted by the constable should establish to the satisfaction of the justice of the peace reasonable grounds for believing that the articles to be identified in the warrant so far as practicable meet the access criteria in section 8(1).’
Pitchford LJ, Kenneth Parker J
[2013] EWHC 725 (Admin)
Bailii
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 8(1) 15(6)(b)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedLee and Others v Solihull Magistrates Court and Another Admn 5-Dec-2013
The claimant challenged search warrants issued by the respondents, on the grounds first that the warrants were too wide in the description of the property which might be seized, that the description of property sought in the warrant was so wide that . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 July 2021; Ref: scu.491901

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.
[1963] Crim LR 703
England and Wales
Cited by:
AppliedAtkinson 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 . .
MentionedRockall 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 June 2021; Ref: scu.258453

Nicolson, Regina (on The Application of) v Tottenham Magistrates and Another: Admn 6 May 2015

The court considered the proper approach on the award of costs on enforcement proceedings taken by local authorities seeking payment of unpaid council tax.
Andrews DBE J
[2015] EWHC 1252 (Admin), [2015] WLR(D) 204, [2015] PTSR 1045
Bailii, WLRD
Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No.613)
England and Wales

Updated: 22 June 2021; Ref: scu.546411

Lord Chancellor, Regina (on the Application Of) v Chief Land Registrar: Admn 15 Jul 2005

Responsibility for magistrates courts had been transferred to the claimant, who in turn asserted that the leasehold assets of the magistrates courts be re-let in standard form in its name. The Registrar indicated his doubt that the Act could create new leases, or that they would be registered. There were particular difficulties with the creation of flying freeholds where premises were shared. The claimant sought a declaration that it could create the new leases. For one property the temporary accomodation let to the magistrates court pending redevelopment would be transformed into a virtual freehold.
Held: The power granted was a power of transfer only and not a power to create leases. There was no power for the Lord Chancellor to set the terms of a lease and impose them on a local authority. It might have been better if Parliament had done so but it had not. The proposal for transfer of freeholds where premises were shared would have serious and unintended financial consequences for those parts of buildings which were not occupied as Magistartes courts, and an express power would have been required for this purpose. No such express power had been given.
Stanley Burnton LJ
[2005] EWHC 1706 (Admin), Times 09-Aug-2005, [2006] 2 WLR 1118, [2006] QB 795, [2005] 4 All ER 643
Bailii
Courts Act 2003
England and Wales

Updated: 03 June 2021; Ref: scu.229307

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 might be imposed. They should have considered merely the threshhold of two years. Also the court had allowed itself to be given advice other than in open court. On the facts of this case, there was a clear possibility of an order for detention of two years or more. The decision was quashed and remitted to the magistrates to reconsider as a whole.
Brooke LJ, Field J
[2005] EWHC 1390 (Admin)
Bailii
Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 24, Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 91
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Eames CACD 1993
. .
CitedRegina v Lennon CACD 1991
In relation to sentencing cases of indecent assault: ‘It was never easy to sentence in such cases; the circumstances of each case would vary greatly. The sentencer must tailor the sentence to the facts of the case before the court.’ . .
CitedH 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 . .
CitedC, Regina (on the Application Of) v Grimsby and Cleethorpes Magistrates Court Admn 28-Jul-2004
A magistrates court having made a decision as to whether or not to decline jurisdiction may not revisit that decision. . .
CitedRegina (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Camberwell Green Youth Court ex parte C W K and A QBD 5-Dec-2003
Magistrates have no Power to redo Mode of Trial
The prosecutor appealed against a refusal of the magistrates to revisit their decision on mode of trial.
Held: The court had no inherent jurisdiction to revisit their decision, and nor did the sections referred to grant any. Craske would have . .
CitedRegina v Harrison CACD 2001
. .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 June 2021; Ref: scu.228890

Rex v Willace: 1797

The commencement of a prosecution was held to be ‘the information and proceeding before the magistrate’.
(1797) 1 East PC 186
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRockall 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 June 2021; Ref: scu.258450

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.
[1937] 2 All ER 671, [1936] Weekly Notes 126
England and Wales
Cited by:
ConsideredRegina v East Kerrier Justices ex parte Mundy 1952
. .
CitedMurchison 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 June 2021; Ref: scu.241311

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.
Held: Devlin J said: ‘Proceedings in summary jurisdiction of this sort are instituted by the laying of an information and the issue of a summons, and, when the summons is issued, that is the institution of the proceedings.’
Devlin J
[1958] 3 WLR 304
National Insurance Act 1946 53(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRockall 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 May 2021; Ref: scu.258449

Capper v Chaney and Another: ChD 8 Jul 2010

Police had seized substantial sums of cash from the first defendant acting under the 2004 Act. The claimant said that andpound;250,00 was his and sought its return. The Commissioner argued that the current proceedings were an abuse of process.
Held: Forfeiture proceedings were now under way, and any release must await the result. The question in those proceedings would be whether the cash was derived from unlawful conduct. The issue before this court was ownership. However the claim sought recovery of cash, and the 2002 Act assigned the resolution of disputes about cash alleged to represent the proceeds of crime to the magistrates’ court (and on appeal the Crown Court). The essence of the issues before the magistrates would in fact be the ownership of the cash, and therefore these proceedigs were an attempt to pre-empt the magistrates and were an abuse. The claim was struck out.
Lewison J
(2010) 174 JP 377, [2010] EWHC 1704 (Ch)
Bailii
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Part 5, Magistrates’ Courts (Detention and Forfeiture of Cash) Rules 2002 1191)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedBarraclough v Brown HL 1897
The 1889 Act gave statutory undertakers who had incurred expenditure in removing a sunken vessel a right ‘to recover such expenses from the owner of such vessel in a court of summary jurisdiction.’ the undertakers began their action in the High . .
AppliedGlaxo Group Ltd and Others v Inland Revenue Commissioners ChD 21-Nov-1995
A tax adjustment can be made by the Inland Revenue on an open assessment following transfer pricing enquiry and direction, even after many years. The court considered that the jurisdiction of the special and the general commissioners to determine . .
CitedHorner v Franklin 1905
. .
CitedRegina 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, . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 May 2021; Ref: scu.420428

O’Sullivan v Director of Public Prosecutions: 27 Mar 2000

Where a motorist challenges the accuracy of the intoximeter, there is only an evidential burden on him.
Unreported, 27 March 2000
Road Traffic Act 1988 5
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoO’Sullivan v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 4-Nov-1998
The court considered and gave directions for the form of statement of case submitted by the magistrates. . .

Cited by:
CitedGrant v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 22-Jan-2003
The appellant had been convicted of failing to give a breath test, and of driving with excess alcohol. He had falsely claimed that he had had a drink in the five minutes before being asked to take the test, and said the officer should not have . .
CitedBreckon v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 22-Aug-2007
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol.
Held: There was no requirement that the prosecutor should produce the results of the roadside breath test in evidence, and the breathalyser was of the approved . .
CitedSmith v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 30-Jan-2007
The defendant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol, arguing that the prosecution had failed to provide the roadside breath test figures.
Held: The appeal failed, and was indeed hopeless. Pill LJ said: ‘The specimens of . .
CitedSmith v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 30-Jan-2007
The defendant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol, arguing that the prosecution had failed to provide the roadside breath test figures.
Held: The appeal failed, and was indeed hopeless. Pill LJ said: ‘The specimens of . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 May 2021; Ref: scu.187205

Broxbourne Borough Council, Regina (On the Application of) v North and East Hertfordshire Magistrates’ Court: Admn 3 Apr 2009

The council appealed against refusal of an abatement order in respect of a statutor nuisance by the defendant by artificial light. A veterinary surgeon had erected a light which stayed on all night but which was adjacent to a neighbour’s bedroom. A light of the sort recommended would have cost under a hundred pounds. Some andpound;13,000 had been expended in costs to date.
Munby J
[2009] EWHC 695 (Admin)
Bailii
Environmental Protection Act 1990 79(1)(fb)
England and Wales

Updated: 20 May 2021; Ref: scu.329570

Regina v Birmingham Magistrates Court ex parte Robinson: 1986

[1986] 150 JP 1
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedMurchison 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 May 2021; Ref: scu.241309

Dewing v Cummings: 1971

There is no power to state a case in relation to committal proceedings.
[1971] RTR 295
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedDonnachie, Regina (on the Application of) v Cardiff Magistrates’ Court Admn 27-Jul-2007
The defendant appealed refusal of the district judge to state a case on the basis of having no jurisdiction.
Held: Where the magistrate is acting not as an Examining Magistrate, but is deciding a preliminary issue as to jurisdiction, his . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 May 2021; Ref: scu.258445

Remice v HMP Belmarsh: Admn 27 Mar 2007

The prisoner was accused of witness intimidation. He was arrested and several bail applications and appeals were heard, but the last simply committed him to prison. He said that since this order would return him to the magistrates, a maximum of eight days could be allowed.
[2007] EWHC 936 (Admin)
Bailii
Magistrates Court Act 1980 128A(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Governor of Pentonville Prison Ex Parte Bone QBD 8-Nov-1994
A Crown Court Judge when remanding a defendant in custody after a prosecution appeal from the Justices must give a date on which he is to be produced. Rose LJ said: ‘For my part, I accept that the Crown Court Judge is not subject to the provisions . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2021; Ref: scu.263481

Bracegirdle v Oxley and Cobley: 1947

The facts proved or admitted pointed inescapably to the conclusion that the drivers had driven dangerously. But the justices, in defiance of Divisional Court authority, concluded that the driving was not dangerous. The point has been decided adversely to the defendant in two previous High Court decisions. The prosecutor appealed by case stated.
Held: Humphreys J said: ‘I only desire to say that for a very great number of years, whenever justices have found facts from which only one conclusion can be drawn by reasonable persons honestly applying their minds to the question, and have refused to draw that only conclusion, this court has invariably upset the decision of the justices in the appropriate manner.’ and ‘If justices persist in disregarding decisions given previously by this Court on a set of facts which cannot be distinguished from the facts which are before the Justices in any particular case, they are guilty of a grave dereliction of duty, because it is their duty to obey the rulings of this Court’.
Lord Goddard CJ: ‘It is said that this court is bound by the findings of fact set out in the cases by the magistrates. It is true that this court does not sit as a general court of appeal against magistrates’ decisions in the same way as quarter sessions. In this court we only sit to review the magistrates’ decisions on points of law, being bound by the facts which they have found, provided always that there is evidence on which they could come to the conclusions of fact at which they have arrived. Mr Parker, who has intervened in this case as amicus curiae to enable the court to have the benefit of a full argument on each side, concedes that if magistrates come to a decision to which no reasonable bench of magistrates, applying their minds to proper considerations and giving themselves proper directions, could come, then this court can interfere, because the position is exactly the same as if the magistrates had come to a decision of fact without evidence to support it. Sometimes it has been said of the verdict of a jury given in those circumstances, that it is perverse, and I should have no hesitation in applying that term to the decisions of magistrates which are arrived at without evidence to support them.’
Humphreys J, Lord Goddard CJ
[1947] KB 349, [1947] 1 All ER 126
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Uddin Admn 8-Jun-2006
Prosecutor’s appeal by case stated against dismissal of charge of taking vehicle without the owner’s consent. Officer’s fleeting sight of defendant who was known to him driving. . .
EndorsedRegina v Mildenhall Magistrates’ Court, Ex Parte Forest Heath District Council; Regina v North West Suffolk (Mildenhall) Magistrates’ Court ex parte Forest Heath District Council CA 16-Apr-1997
The Magistrates appealed against an order of mandamus requiring a case to be stated after rejecting the request by the authority as frivolous. The authority had sought to prevent the emission of noise from land used for a Motocross racing track.
CitedSkelton, Regina (on The Application of) v Winchester Crown Court Admn 5-Dec-2017
The Court was asked whether the Crown Court could properly refuse to state a case for the opinion of the divisional court, having convicted a defendant, on her appeal from the magistrates’ court, of an offence of common assault. She was evicted from . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2021; Ref: scu.242963