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.

Judges:

Stanley Burnton LJ

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1706 (Admin), Times 09-Aug-2005, [2006] 2 WLR 1118, [2006] QB 795, [2005] 4 All ER 643

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Courts Act 2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land, Magistrates

Updated: 20 December 2022; 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.

Judges:

Brooke LJ, Field J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1390 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

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

Jurisdiction:

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
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.228890

Rex v Willace: 1797

The commencement of a prosecution was held to be ‘the information and proceeding before the magistrate’.

Citations:

(1797) 1 East PC 186

Jurisdiction:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 09 December 2022; 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.

Citations:

[1937] 2 All ER 671, [1936] Weekly Notes 126

Jurisdiction:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.241311

Regina v Doncaster Justices Ex Parte Jack; Regina v Doncaster Justices Ex Parte Christison: QBD 26 May 1999

Magistrates having been told previously not to sentence for wilful failure to pay fine or taxes in the absence of the defendant who can give evidence, and continuing to do so, must face an order to pay the costs of appeal personally.

Citations:

Times 26-May-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.85240

Rex v Sandford: 1647

A magistrate may arrest somebody committing an affray in his presence. He may be held pending a warrant which must be in writing and sent to the gaoler.

Citations:

(1647) 1 Hale PC 587, (1647) 2 Hale PC 122

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Magistrates

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.259605

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.’

Judges:

Devlin J

Citations:

[1958] 3 WLR 304

Statutes:

National Insurance Act 1946 53(1)

Jurisdiction:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 07 December 2022; 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.

Judges:

Lewison J

Citations:

(2010) 174 JP 377, [2010] EWHC 1704 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Part 5, Magistrates’ Courts (Detention and Forfeiture of Cash) Rules 2002 1191)

Jurisdiction:

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, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Torts – Other, Magistrates

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.420428

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.

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 695 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 79(1)(fb)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Nuisance, Magistrates

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.329570

Dewing v Cummings: 1971

There is no power to state a case in relation to committal proceedings.

Citations:

[1971] RTR 295

Jurisdiction:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.258445

Regina v Birmingham Magistrates Court ex parte Robinson: 1986

Citations:

[1986] 150 JP 1

Jurisdiction:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.241309

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.

Citations:

Unreported, 27 March 2000

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 5

Jurisdiction:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Magistrates

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.187205

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.

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 936 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Magistrates Court Act 1980 128A(2)

Jurisdiction:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Magistrates

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.263481

Crown Prosecution Service v Greenacre: Admn 3 Apr 2007

Following his conviction for false accounting, a confiscation order was made against the defendant. After agreeing various adjournments the prosecutor said that the magistrates court had no power to allow such an adjournment under section 75(2) of the 1980 Act, because section 75(2)(a) of the 1988 Act did not allow magistrates to remit any part of a confiscation order, and that adjournment with the effect of restarting any calculation of interest would amount to a remission.
Held: The case stated was denied, and the defendant’s appeal failed. The prosecutor’s argument was powerful. However sections 76 and 77 of the Act ‘may readily be deployed in the magistrates’ court for the purpose of enforcing a Crown Court confiscation order without in the least trammelling over the terms of that order itself, and it seems to me plain that that was the legislative intention. ‘

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1193 (Admin), [2008] 1 WLR 438

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts Act 1980 75(2) 76 77, Criminal Justice Act 1988 75(5)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Hastings and Rother Justices ex parte David Graham Anscombe Admn 5-Feb-1998
. .
CitedRevenue and Customs Prosecution Service v Kearney Admn 27-Feb-2007
The Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office appealed by way of case stated from a decision of the Crown Court to extend by four months the time limit available to pay a confiscation order made under section 71 of the 1988 Act. The question was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.253289

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.’

Judges:

Humphreys J, Lord Goddard CJ

Citations:

[1947] KB 349, [1947] 1 All ER 126

Jurisdiction:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.242963

Gibson, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: SC 24 Jan 2018

The appellant had been sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and a confiscation order pounds 5.4m with six years in default. Small payments were made later by his receivers, but the interest had taken the total sums due over pounds 8m at the time of payments. The Court was asked say whether when calculating the credit against time spent, the sums were as against the sums originally due, or the sums at the time of payment.
Held: The claimant’s appeal was allowed. At the time, the 1994 Act applied, under which the interest was to be treated as part of the amount to be recovered. s.79(2) expressly say that the days to be deducted are to be the number which bear the same proportion to the total default term imposed (by the Crown Court) as the part payments bear ‘to so much of the said sum . . as was due at the time the period of detention was imposed’. At the time the Crown Court imposed the default term, there was as yet no interest accrued at all. The words of a penalty statute are not to be strained to achieve a prejudicial outcome.

Judges:

Lord Mance, Deputy President, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes, Lady Black

Citations:

[2018] UKSC 2, [2018] Lloyd’s Rep FC 195, [2018] 2 All ER 478, [2018] 1 Cr App R (S) 51, [2018] 1 WLR 629, UKSC 2016/0052

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2017 Dec 5 am Video, SC 2017 Dec 5 pm Video

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts Act 1980 79(2), Drug Trafficking Act 1994, Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing Act) 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At AdmnGibson, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 4-Sep-2013
. .
Appeal fromGibson, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 11-Nov-2015
‘The issue in the case is whether the words ‘the said sum . . as was due at the time the period of detention was imposed’ in section 79(2) of the Magistrates’ Court Act (MCA) 1980 should be construed in the case of confiscation orders made under the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Magistrates

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.603119

Haralambous 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 material seized under it. In this case the information before the justice of the peace granting the warrant was later redacted to such an extent that what is available to the claimant is not a sufficient legal basis for it or the retention of property seized. Courts below have authorised the redactions on public interest grounds, but the claimant contends that this constitutes a closed material procedure which is without statutory foundation.
Held: Review refused.

Judges:

Burnett LJ, Cranston J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 916 (Admin), [2016] WLR(D) 209, [2016] Lloyd’s Rep FC 412, [2016] Crim LR 664, [2016] 2 Cr App R 17, (2016) 180 JP 428, [2016] 1 WLR 3073, 180 JP 428

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 . .
CitedAHK and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 7-Jun-2013
. .
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 . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromHaralambous, 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Police, Magistrates

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.562904

Golfrate 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 on public interest grounds to withhold information placed before a magistrate to obtain a warrant should be taken by a Chief Constable and was required to be sanctioned by the court.

Judges:

Sir John Thomas P, Foskett J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 840 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 35(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

DisapprovedMills and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Sussex Police and Another Admn 25-Jul-2014
The claimants faced criminal charges involving allegations of fraud and corruption. They now challenged by judicial review a search and seizure warrant saying that it was unlawful. A restraint order had been made against them and they had complied . .
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 . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Magistrates

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.523156

Commissioner 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 issue for the magistrates’ court. The court acknowledged that the public interest might demand that some or all of the material relied on to obtain the warrant not be disclosed

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 546 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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 . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Police

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.521947

Evans, Regina (on The Application of) v North Somerset Magistrates Court: Admn 27 Apr 2012

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent to commit her for non-payment of a compensation order.
Held: The request succeeded. The magistrates had failed to take account of the terms of the original order made by the crown court and had failed to distinguish between assets of the claimant and of her husband.

Judges:

Moses LJ, Eady J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 2382 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.463802

British 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 the decision. The poice were investigating an offence under the 1989 Act.
Held: It was common ground that neither the Civil nor the Criminal Procedure Rules contain any provisions governing an application under section 9 and schedule 1 of PACE. Paragraph 7 of schedule 1 requires the hearing to be conducted inter partes, but apart from that the only procedural requirement is that they be conducted in accordance with common law principles of fairness and the requirements of Article 6 of the ECHR.
The procedure adopted in this case was unlawful: ‘there was a failure to observe a fundamental principle of law bearing directly on the fairness of the proceedings, a matter which the court should be very slow to condone. Moreover, however carefully the judge considered the secret evidence, that can be no substitute for allowing B Sky B to challenge it, for the reasons given by Lord Kerr in Al Rawi.’

Judges:

Moore-Bick LJ, Bean J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 3451 (Admin), [2012] 3 WLR 78, 2012 GWD 21-432, 2012 SCL 635, 2012 SCCR 562, [2012] 4 All ER 600, [2012] QB 785, [2012] HRLR 24

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 9, Official Secrets Act 1989 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 . .
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, . .
CitedAl Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others CA 4-May-2010
Each claimant had been captured and mistreated by the US government, and claimed the involvement in and responsibility for that mistreatment by the respondents. The court was asked whether a court in England and Wales, in the absence of statutory . .
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 . .
CitedRegina v Central Criminal Court Ex Parte Bright; Regina v Same, Ex Parte Rusbridger QBD 21-Jul-2000
An order was made for a journalist to disclose to the police material disclosed to him in connection with a prosecution under the Official Secrets Act. The journalist appealed the order, on the basis that it was in effect an order that he . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromBritish 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Media, Magistrates, Human Rights, Natural Justice

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.459730

Cronin, 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 the warrant.
Held: Where the information laid was itself sufficient to account for the warrant a magistrate could be assumed to have acted upon it, and no further reasons were required to be noted. Warrants were often issued under conditions where such a requirement would be unreasonable. Here the magistrate would only have repeated the contents of the information. Where a magistrate elicited further information from the officer which affected the decision, it was necessary for that to be recorded.
Lord Woolf CJ said: ‘Information may contain details of an informer which it would be contrary to the public interest to reveal. The information may also contain other statements to which public interest immunity might apply. But, subject to that, if a person who is in the position of this claimant asks perfectly sensibly for a copy of the information, then speaking for myself I can see no objection to a copy of that information being provided. The citizen, in my judgment, should be entitled to be able to assess whether an information contains the material which justifies the issue of a warrant. This information contained the necessary evidence to justify issuing the warrant.’

Judges:

Lord Woolf of Barnes LCJ, Hallett, Stanley Burnton JJ

Citations:

Times 28-Nov-2002, Gazette 30-Jan-2003, [2002] EWHC 2568 (Admin), [2003] 1 WLR 752

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 23(3), European Convention on Human Rights Art 6 Art 8, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 8 15 16

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAB 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 . .
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, Police, Human Rights, Magistrates

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.402518

Russell v Magistrates of Hamilton: 1897

An interdict was granted against the Provost and Magistrates of Hamilton.

Citations:

(1897) 25 R 350

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

CitedReclaiming Motion In Petition of Scott Davidson for Judicial Review of A Decision To Continue To Detain the Prisoner In Inhuman and Degrading Prison C SCS 18-Dec-2001
A prisoner sought an order for his removal from a prison found to have a regime which breached his human rights. The Crown replied that an order could not be made under s21 of the 1947 Act.
Held: The prisoner had followed through his rights to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.237560

Attorney 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 warrant was obtained and executed. The claimants said the warrant was unconstitutional and unlawful and sought return of documents taken. They said that the court had acted on the basis that the justice issuing the warrant could rely on the officer being satisfied of the matters alleged without making his own judgement.
Held: An officer making an application owed a duty of openness. His disclosures to the magistrate were in confidence, though there were matters which a justice need not be made aware of.
‘Their Lordships do not underestimate the difficulty and delicacy of the task which is put upon Justices and other judicial officers to whom application is made for search warrants. The applicant is generally a police or other law enforcement officer who knows far more than the Justice about the investigation. The application is made ex parte; there is naturally a predisposition upon the part of the Justice to be helpful to the officer who is present and assures him that a search is necessary. The officer may be known to the Justice, who may have learnt to trust his judgment and veracity. Their Lordships do not suggest that this is something which should be ignored. On the other hand, the citizen whose rights the Justice is constitutionally required to protect is absent and seldom depicted in the most favourable light. Nevertheless, if the constitutional safeguards are to have any meaning, it is essential for the Justice conscientiously to ask himself whether on the information given to him upon oath (in the case of section 203, either orally or in writing) he is satisfied that the officer’s suspicion is based upon reasonable cause.’
‘Although the courts may sometimes feel frustrated by their inability to go behind the curtain of the recital that the justice was duly satisfied and to examine the substance of whether reasonable grounds for suspicion existed (a frustration articulated by Lord Scarman in R v Inland Revenue Comrs, Ex p Rossminster Ltd [1980] AC 952, 1022) their Lordships think that it would be wrong to try to compensate by creating formal requirements for the validity of a warrant which the statute itself does not impose. In so doing, there is a risk of having the worst of both worlds: the intention of the legislature to promote the investigation of crime may be frustrated on technical and arbitrary grounds, while the courts, in cases in which the outward formalities have been observed, remain incapable of protecting the substance of the individual right conferred by the Constitution.’

Judges:

Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Clyde, Lord Hutton

Citations:

[1997] UKPC 22, [1997] 3 WLR 389, [1998] AC 351

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Citing:

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 . .

Cited by:

CitedGibbs and others v Rea PC 29-Jan-1998
(Cayman Islands) The respondent worked for a bank. He disclosed a business interest, but that interest grew in importance to the point where he resigned in circumstances amounting to constructive dismissal. His home and business officers were raided . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Constitutional, Magistrates

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.159232

Constantinides v Constantinides: FD 6 Nov 2013

The defendant appealed against a Magistrate’s order for his committal for failure to make payments under a maintenance order registered at the court.
Held: The Magistrate did not have power to commit the defendant to prison without having satisfactory evidence of his ability to pay.

Judges:

Holman J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 3688 (Fam), [2014] 1 WLR 1934, [2014] Fam Law 440, [2014] 2 FLR 736, [2013] WLR(D) 455

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Maintenance Orders Act 1958 3, Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 93

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contempt of Court, Magistrates, Family

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.519034

Singh, Regina (on the Application Of) v Stratford Magistrates Court: Admn 3 Jul 2007

The defendant appealed the decision of the district judge when adjourning his case for a second psychiatric report with a view to hispossible committal to hospital, saying that this would deprive him of his right to a trial.
Held: In cases alleged insanity either at the time of the offence or at trial, the magistrates had power to make a committal order rather than to proceed to a verdict.

Judges:

Hughes LJ, Treacy J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1582 (Admin), Times 13-Aug-2007, [2007] 1 WLR 3119, [2008] 1 Cr App R 2, [2007] 4 All ER 407

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983 37(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health, Magistrates

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.254480

Regina v Clerk to Bradford Justices, ex parte Sykes and Shoesmith: Admn 14 Jan 1999

A justices’ clerk has the power to enquire into the circumstances preceding and surrounding, the request for the issue of a summons, but has no duty to make such enquiries. Previous similar charges dismissed by the same court.

Citations:

Gazette 10-Feb-1999, Times 28-Jan-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 24

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.139288

Director of Public Prosecutions v Jones: QBD 12 Mar 2020

The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed by way case stated against the decision of the Magistrates by which they refused an application by the prosecution to amend two charges alleging common assault to add the words, ‘by beating.’ The magistrates refused the application because it was made outside the six month time limit allowed for charging summary offences, and they considered it to be contrary to the interests of justice to allow it.
Held: It was clearly in the interests of justice that this amendment should be allowed, and that the case should proceed.

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 859 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.650579

Jackson v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police: QBD 22 Oct 1993

Mr Jackson was convicted of a drugs offence. On arrest, the police had seized money in his possession. No order as to the money was made at the trial. Mr Jackson applied under the Act. The magistrate accepted that Mr Jackson was the owner of the money, but, because he (the magistrate) considered that it was the proceeds of the sale of controlled drugs, he declined to direct that the money be returned. In the Case Stated he said that for the money to be returned to Mr Jackson would have been ‘repugnant and contrary to public policy’.
Held: Laws J dismissed Mr Jackson’s appeal. He referred to White -v- West Midlands Police. Having recorded that counsel for Mr Jackson had accepted ‘that if an applicant issues process in the Common Law Court on facts such as those of the present case, the defendant would be entitled to raise a public policy defence and the court would be entitled to give effect to it’.

Judges:

Laws J

Citations:

Unreported, 22 October 1993

Statutes:

Police (Property) Act 1897 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedChief Constable of West Midlands Police v White CA 13-Mar-1992
After conviction for licensing offences, the police seized a sum of money from the respondent which they alleged was the proceeds of unlicensed sales. The magistrates made no order on conviction, so the police brought the issue under the Act. The . .

Cited by:

CitedGough and Another v The Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police CA 2-Mar-2004
The claimants sought return of vehicle parts from the police. The police replied that the goods had been tampered with in such a way as to suggest they may have been stolen, and that they were therefore kept, even after the finish of the court . .
CitedMerseyside Police v Owens Admn 31-May-2012
The police had refused to returns items seized from Mr Owens on the basis that to do so would indirectly encourage and assist him in suspected criminal activity. CCTV footage had been removed from him to attempt identify an arsonist of a house.The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Magistrates

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.194112

Webb v Leadbetter: QBD 1966

One of two witnesses whom the prosecution desired to call at the hearing of an information had not arrived. The available witness was called. The prosecution case closed. The defendant gave evidence and his case closed. The justices had retired to consider their decision when they were informed that the second prosecution witness, whose car had broken down, had arrived. They returned to court and allowed the prosecution to call him. His evidence corroborated that of the first prosecution witness. The defendant was convicted.
Held: Although justices have a discretion to allow further evidence to be called in particular circumstances, the manner of exercise depends on the stage of the case. In the absence of very special circumstances, they should not allow evidence to be called after they have retired, and that such circumstances being absent, the further evidence for the prosecution had been wrongly admitted, and the appeal would be allowed and the conviction quashed.
Lord Parker CJ: ‘It is, of course, quite clear under our law that he who affirms must prove. Therefore strictly once the prosecution have closed their case there will be no opportunity for them to call further evidence, subject of course to evidence in rebuttal, with which we are not concerned. Nevertheless, it does seem to me that there must always be some residuary discretion of the court to allow, in particular circumstances, evidence to be called, but the manner in which that discretion is exercised must depend on the stage of the case. When one turns to indictable offences it is perfectly clear that it has become now an established rule of law that no evidence can be called after the summing up and the judge, who in his discretion sought to exercise his discretion by allowing evidence to be called at that stage, would be acting entirely wrongly and the conviction would be quashed.
The same considerations do not wholly apply in the Magistrates’ Court but, nevertheless, as a general rule and in the absence of some special circumstances it would certainly be wholly wrong for the justices to purport to exercise a discretion to allow evidence to be called once they have retired and, indeed, probably after the defence had closed their case. At an earlier stage it may well be proper to exercise the discretion in favour of allowing the witness to be called and indeed that was suggested in the decision of this court in Saunders v Johns.’
‘So far as this case is concerned I am quite satisfied that there was only one way in which any residuary discretion in the justices could have been exercised, the prosecution having closed their case, the defence having closed their case and they having retired. In those circumstances, I think there is no option but to quash this conviction.’
Winn LJ: ‘This is not one of those cases in which there were the very special circumstances to which Lord Parker CJ has referred.’

Judges:

Lord Parker CJ, Winn LJ and Sachs J

Citations:

[1966] 1 WLR 245

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAntonio Leeson v Haringey Justices and Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 26-Jul-1999
The prosecutor on a charge of driving with excess alcohol had failed to adduce evidence as to the calibration of the intoximeter. The magistrates allowed him to re-open his case. The defendant appealed.
Held: The appeal was dismissed: ‘If the . .
CitedPhelan v Back 1972
. .
CitedTraves, Regina (on the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 30-Jun-2005
The defendant appealed conviction involving allegations that he was driving. He was sat at the wheel of a vehicle being towed by means of a rigid steel bar. He denied that he was driving, but had both steered and braked.
Held: The magistrates . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.195677

James v South Glamorgan County Council: 1992

On trial of a charge of supplying a motor vehicle in an un-roadworthy condition, a prosecution witness (the person to whom the vehicle was supplied) had difficulty in locating the Court House. Before he arrived, the prosecution had closed its case, and the defendant had given evidence in chief, but there had been no submission. The Justices allowed the prosecution to re-open its case.
Held: The appeal failed. The Justices had a discretionary power to admit the evidence, but the issue was as to the circumstances in which that power should be exercised. The stressed the exceptional nature of the contingency, and the fact that the Justices seemed to have been satisfied that the evidence could be admitted without unfairness to the defendant.

Judges:

Leggatt LJ

Citations:

[1992] RTR 312

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Pilcher 1974
The prosecutor had closed his case, and the defendant had presented some evidence. It became clear that the prosecutor had failed to present evidence on one element, and the defendant appealed his conviction after the prosecutor had been allowed to . .

Cited by:

CitedChristopher James Jolly v Director of Public Prosections Admn 31-Mar-2000
At trial in the magistrates court, the prosecution had failed to bring evidence that the computer used to analyse the defendant’s breath alcohol was in proper working condition. The defendant submitted no case to answer, and the magistrates allowed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Magistrates

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.195676

Regina v Aylesbury Justices, Ex parte Wisbey: 1965

If a defendant considers that the particulars provided in an information are insufficient the court has the power, at any time after the charge has been preferred, to require the prosecution to furnish him with better and more complete particulars.

Citations:

[1965] 1 All ER 602

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDacre Son and Hartley Ltd v North Yorkshire Trading Standards Admn 27-Oct-2004
The defendants appealed a conviction under the Act complaining of the adequacy of the evidence presented. A buyer had found dampness in a property. It was later remarketed by the defendant who asked if it suffered dampness. She was told it did not. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.220210

Regina v Klisiak; Regina v Ramsgate Justices, ex parte Warren: 1981

Citations:

[1981] CLY 549

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Telford Justices, ex parte Badhan CACD 1991
The defendant was accused of a sexual offence alleged to have been committed some 15 years earlier. He asked the magistrates to dismiss the charge as an abuse of process, and now appealed their refusal.
Held: The onus was on the accused to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.194828

Regina v Meyer: 1875

The court made an order for costs against a justice who ought not to have sat on a case. (Comment: ‘The granting of costs when a rule is made absolute for a certiorari is contrary to the usual practice: see Gray on Costs p 466 where it is said: ‘As there is no provision (in the statute 5 Geo 2, c 19) for the payment of costs where the order or other proceedings is quashed, neither party is in that case entitled to costs’.’)

Citations:

[1875] 1 QBD 173

Jurisdiction:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.194527

Regina (Mudie and Another) v Dover Magistrates’ Court and Another: CA 4 Feb 2003

The applicants wished to challenge the confiscation of their goods by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise on their return to Dover. They appealed the refusal of Legal Aid.
Held: The Convention guaranteed the right to legal assistance for someone charged with a criminal offence and who could not afford representation, but these condemnation proceedings were civil not criminal. The claimants argued that a finding against them involved a finding of reprehensible behaviour (Engel), but this mistook the court’s function which was to decide whether the goods were liable to seizure.

Judges:

Phillips of Worth Matravers, MR, Brooke, Laws LJJ

Citations:

Times 07-Feb-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 237, [2003] QB 1238, [2003] 2 WLR 1344

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Access to Justice Act 1999 12(2), Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 Sch 3 para 6, European Convention on Human Rights 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedGoldsmith and Another v Commissioners of Customs and Excise QBD 7-Jun-2001
The applicants were stopped after bringing into the country 26 kilos of tobacco, without declaring it. The customs applied for an order condemning the tobacco. The applicants argued that the proceedings were, in effect, criminal proceedings, and . .
CitedEngel And Others v The Netherlands (1) ECHR 8-Jun-1976
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 . .

Cited by:

CitedGora and others v Commissioners of Customs and Excise and others CA 11-Apr-2003
The appellants challenged decisions of the VAT and Duties Tribunal after seizure of their goods, and in particular whether the cases had been criminal or civil cases and following Roth, whether the respondent’s policy had been lawful and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, Magistrates, Legal Aid, Human Rights

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.178991

Wilson v Crown Prosecution Service: QBD 12 Mar 2020

Appeal by way of case stated in respect of the decision by the Magistrates refusing to allow the appellant to change his plea of guilty to various breaches of a criminal behaviour order which was imposed on him. The case raises issues about the circumstances in which a defendant will be allowed to vacate his plea of guilty in the Magistrates’ Court.

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 820 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650580

T, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another: Admn 3 May 2013

The claimant, a 15 year old boy,alleged that his detention in the cells at a Magistrates court when facing a charge of breach of bail conditions was a breach of his human rights and under the 1933 and 2010 Acts.
Held: In the particular circumstances there was a breach of the 1933 Act, but not otherwise.

Judges:

Sir John Thoma P QBD, Cranston J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1119 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children and Young Persons Act 1933 31, European Convention on Human Rights 8, Equality Act 2010 149

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Human Rights, Magistrates

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.503472

Regina v Oldham Justices ex parte Crawley (orse Cawley): 1996

The court set out the duties of magistrates when making a warrant for committal. Simon Brown LJ said that where there has been a criminal conviction the courts have firmly excluded collateral attack by habeas corpus, holding that the only proper remedy lies by way of appeal.

Judges:

Staughton LJ, Simon Brown LJ

Citations:

[1996] 2 WLR 681, [1997] QB 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v York Magistrate Court ex parte Grimes Admn 12-May-1997
The defendant sought judicial review of the decision of the magistrates to commit her to prison for non-payment of fines. The had found wilful neglect to pay.
Held: The magistrates had erred in thinking that the variability of the defendant’s . .
CitedSecretary of State for Justice v James HL 6-May-2009
The applicant had been sentenced to an indefinite term for public protection, but the determinate part of his sentence had passed with no consideration as to whether his continued detention was required.
Held: The post tariff detention was not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.199787

Ukpabi v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 18 Apr 2008

Appeal against conviction for assaulting police constables in the execution of their duty.
Held: The magistrates had given the impression that in convicting him they were not fully convinced of the evidence against him, and that therefore a lower burden of proof had been applied. The decision was set aside.

Judges:

Hooper LJ, Maddison J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 952 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police Act 1996 89

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedEvans v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 2001
The defendant appealed saying that the magistrates in convicting him had given the impression that they had applied a lower standard of proof than was required.
Held: Even though there was no basis to find that the magistrates had in fact . .
DistinguishedMcCubbin, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 12-Oct-2004
The defendant appealed by way of case stated against the decision of the magistrates to convict him of assault.
Held: No point of law had been raised. The reasons given were adequate. In truth this was a challenge on the facts, and the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.267415

Rex v Norfolk Justices and Another ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions: 1950

The justices, having convicted a defendant, purported first to commit him to quarter sessions for sentence but the case was not one to which the sub-section applied.
Held: The committal was a nullity and the justices were entitled to proceed to sentence and an order was made compelling them to do so. Justices have jurisdiction to sentence a defendant, notwithstanding that they previously purported to commit him for sentence in respect of an offence which carried no such power.

Citations:

[1950] KB 558

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMathialagan, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Southwark and Another CA 13-Dec-2004
Liability Orders were made against the appellant in respect of non-domestic rates in respect of two properties. The orders were made in the absence of the appellant or any representative. Application for judicial review was made to re-open the . .
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 . .
CitedLiverpool City Council v Pleroma Distribution Ltd Admn 21-Nov-2002
The defendant had applied for an adjournment of the council’s application for a liability order. The court made an order without considering the application, not having been told of it. On later discovering the application, they set aside the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.220279

Mathialagan, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Southwark and Another: CA 13 Dec 2004

Liability Orders were made against the appellant in respect of non-domestic rates in respect of two properties. The orders were made in the absence of the appellant or any representative. Application for judicial review was made to re-open the hearing.
Held: Though magistrates may have jurisdiction to re-open a criminal case, there was no corresponding right in a civil action. Al Mehdawi holds that a failure on the part of a party to be present due to the negligence of the party’s advisor gives no ground for quashing the decision, and is binding. Appeal refused.

Judges:

Lord Justice Waller Lord Justice Carnwath And Sir William Aldous

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1689, Times 21-Dec-2004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedLiverpool City Council v Pleroma Distribution Ltd Admn 21-Nov-2002
The defendant had applied for an adjournment of the council’s application for a liability order. The court made an order without considering the application, not having been told of it. On later discovering the application, they set aside the . .
CitedMcKerry v Teesdale and Wear Valley Justices; McKerry v Director of Public Prosecutions CA 29-Feb-2000
The courts must recognise the need to protect the identity of children involved in criminal proceedings. This derived both from national statute and from international law and practice. Nevertheless, the court had the discretion in appropriate cases . .
CitedEnglish v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd; etc, (Practice Note) CA 30-Apr-2002
Judge’s Reasons Must Show How Reached
In each case appeals were made, following Flannery, complaining of a lack of reasons given by the judge for his decision.
Held: Human Rights jurisprudence required judges to put parties into a position where they could understand how the . .
CitedRex v Marsham ex parte Pethick Lawrence 1912
The magistrate had failed to swear a witness and purported to convict the applicant in that case. The case was reheard on sworn evidence.
Held: The court refused to quash the conviction. The magistrate correctly treated the first hearing as ‘a . .
CitedBannister v Clarke 1920
The act of the justices in purporting to commit the appellant for trial on five informations was a nullity and thus did not deprive the justices of jurisdiction to hear those informations summarily at a subsequent date. . .
CitedRegina v West 1964
The justices had purported to hear and determine an information of accessory after the fact of a larceny.
Held: The action was a nullity; and thus the defendant’s acquittal was also a nullity. The justices had therefore not exhausted their . .
CitedRex v Norfolk Justices and Another ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions 1950
The justices, having convicted a defendant, purported first to commit him to quarter sessions for sentence but the case was not one to which the sub-section applied.
Held: The committal was a nullity and the justices were entitled to proceed . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating, Magistrates

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.220271

Liverpool City Council v Pleroma Distribution Ltd: Admn 21 Nov 2002

The defendant had applied for an adjournment of the council’s application for a liability order. The court made an order without considering the application, not having been told of it. On later discovering the application, they set aside the liability order to consider the application. The council objected.
Held: Although no statutory basis existed for such a re-opening of their decision, the magistrates could rely upon their inherent powers. They had a discretion to exercise, and had been requested to exercise it, but had not done so, and they had not exhausted their jurisdiction.

Judges:

Maurice Kay J

Citations:

Times 02-Dec-2002, Gazette 30-Jan-2003, [2002] EWHC 2467 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts Act 1980, Local Government and Finance Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRex v Norfolk Justices and Another ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions 1950
The justices, having convicted a defendant, purported first to commit him to quarter sessions for sentence but the case was not one to which the sub-section applied.
Held: The committal was a nullity and the justices were entitled to proceed . .

Cited by:

CitedMathialagan, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Southwark and Another CA 13-Dec-2004
Liability Orders were made against the appellant in respect of non-domestic rates in respect of two properties. The orders were made in the absence of the appellant or any representative. Application for judicial review was made to re-open the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.178303

Regina (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 applied. The defendants challenged the application of the new procedures other than to the initial charges. Two offences had been committed before the Act.
Held: Proceedings against a defendant did not become proceedings in respect of a new charge as a result of prosecutorial substitution. The substituted cases were therefore properly dealt with under the new procedure. The duty of the court under section 51 of the 1998 Act to send a case to the Crown Court does not preclude it from exercising its jurisdiction to stay proceedings as an abuse of the process, though it will very rarely be appropriate to do so.

Judges:

Lord Justice Auld and Mr Justice Gage

Citations:

Times 04-Jun-2002, [2002] EWHC 919 (Admin), [2002] 2 Cr App R 40, [2002] 1 WLR 3073

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Crime and Disorder Act 1998 51

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRex v Norfolk Justices and Another ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions 1950
The justices, having convicted a defendant, purported first to commit him to quarter sessions for sentence but the case was not one to which the sub-section applied.
Held: The committal was a nullity and the justices were entitled to proceed . .

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.172210

Regina v Luton Justices ex parte Abecasis: Admn 29 Jun 1999

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Admin 613

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Drug Trafficking Act 1994 42(1), Magistrates Courts (Detention and Forfeiture of Drug Trafficking Cash) Rules 1991 (1991 No 1923)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Luton Justices ex parte Abecasis CA 30-Mar-2000
Although the rules specified that a form should be used when making application to extend the time for which money could be held pending an application under the Act for its forfeiture, there was no enforceable duty to prove that the form had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.139877

Regina v Luton Justices ex parte Abecasis: CA 30 Mar 2000

Although the rules specified that a form should be used when making application to extend the time for which money could be held pending an application under the Act for its forfeiture, there was no enforceable duty to prove that the form had been used, and its absence was not a fatal flaw in the application. The form was not an originating process, it was not a document served on the respondents, the defendant would be notified directly. No prejudice was established by any failure to us the form.

Citations:

Times 30-Mar-2000, Gazette 30-Mar-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 5564, (2000) 164 JP 265

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Drug Trafficking Act 1994 42(1), Magistrates Courts (Detention and Forfeiture of Drug Trafficking Cash) Rules 1991 (1991 No 1923)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Luton Justices ex parte Abecasis Admn 29-Jun-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.85381

Rev J B Lorraine and Others v Magistrates of Peebles: HL 11 May 1875

Interdict granted ( aff. judgment of the Court of Session) against the magistrates of a burgh authorising the bells of the parish church to be rung on Sundays for other purposes than calling the congregation of that church to worship.

Citations:

[1875] UKHL 430, 12 SLR 430

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Magistrates

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650105

Environment Agency v Campbell and Another: QBD 18 May 1998

Magistrates who had dismissed a prosecution for the failure of the prosecutor to attend court and without any consideration of the merits, were able to hear a subsequent summons issued on same facts.

Citations:

Times 18-May-1998, Times 18-May-1998, Gazette 10-Jun-1998

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts Act 1980 15

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.80338

Barons Pub Company Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Staines Magistrates’ Court: Admn 18 Apr 2013

The company sought judicial review of a refusal to dismiss charges against them under the 2006 Regulations as an abuse of process.
Held: Magistrates have no power of review of a prosecutorial decision other than through an abuse of process application. In this case the Council had followed their own procedures in moving from their first complaint and subsequent visit through to the issuing of the summons, allowing the company appropriate opportunity to clean the premises or to close them until cleaned.

Judges:

Simon J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 898 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Food Hygiene (England) Regulations 2006

Cited by:

CitedQRS v Beach and Another QBD 26-Sep-2014
The court gave its reasons for granting an interim injunction to prevent the defendants publshing materials on their web-sites which were said to harrass the claimants.
Held: Whilst it was important to protect the identity of the claimants, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472681

Davis v Leicestershire Constabulary: Admn 18 Jul 2012

The claimant appealed against the refusal of the return of money seized from him by the respondent’s officers under the 2002 Act. The magistrates had declined jurisdiction saying that the complaint was out of time. The claimant said that his request was neither a complaint nor an information so as to fall foul of the six month rule.
Held: The Rules had the effect that the request was to be treated as a complaint from the moment it was filed, and that therefore the time limit applied: ‘ the failure by the appellant to submit the complaint within the prescribed six-month time limit is fatal. In my view the time limits are deliberately strict and no provision is made for them to be extended within the 1980 Act, or elsewhere.’

Judges:

Sir John Thomas, Silber J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 3388 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 294, Magistrates Courts Act 1980 127(1), Magistrates’ Courts (Detention and Forfeiture of Cash) Rules 2002 11

Police, Magistrates

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471240

Oladimeji v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 11 May 2006

The defendant appealed his conviction for failing to provide a specimen of breath without reasonable excuse. The magistrates rejected the defendant’s statement that he had had difficulty providing the breath specimen at the roadside, that he faced similar difficulty in the station, and that he had asthma and was under treatment with anti-biotics.
Held: The court criticised the case as stated in failing to separate the evidence from the findings. However the magistrates had evidence on which to base their conclusions as to the defendant’s condition. The appeal failed.

Judges:

Keene LJ, Jack J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1199 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 7(6), Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 64.6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic, Magistrates

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.242209

F (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 represented by a different prosecutor who successfully renewed the application for an adjournment. The application was identical to the application made in the morning.
Held: The decision was quashed. The magistrates were in error in revisiting their decision to adjourn. Sullivan J said that the issue for the district judge was whether there had been a change of relevant circumstances between the morning and afternoon. The prosecution had conceded that there was no change of circumstances. Latham LJ agreed.

Judges:

Latham LJ, Sullivan J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 695 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.241731

Bourne v Scarborough Magistrates’ Court: Admn 10 Nov 2017

Whether legal adviser nominated as case manager had the power to adjourn a hearing

Judges:

Holroyde LJ, Dingemans J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 2828 (Admin), [2018] Crim LR 258, (2018) 182 JP 49, [2018] 4 WLR 29, 182 JP 49, [2017] WLR(D) 854

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure Rules 3.5(2)(f)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.599402

Cronin, Regina (on The Application of) v Sheffield Magistrates’ Court and Another: Admn 10 May 2002

Renewed application for permission to seek judicial review following refusal of permission on the papers by Turner J. In refusing permission he wrote:
‘The application is out of time and certainly was not made promptly. In any event there was material before the magistrate which justified the issue of a warrant (see the contents of the acknowledgment of service). The case is unarguable.’

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 1367 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates, Police

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.402515

Steward v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 30 Jul 2003

Magistrates announced that there was no case to answer, but then agreed evidence was put before them which clearly undermined the basis of that decision.
Held: It was open to the magistrates to correct their mistake immediately. The appellant’s contention was highly technical. An error had been agreed by the defendant’s solicitor and admitted by the Magistrates, and the Essex Justices case did not apply.

Judges:

Maurice Kay, Crane JJ

Citations:

Times 25-Sep-2003, [2003] EWHC 2251 (Admin), [2004] 1 WLR 592

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

DistinguishedRegina v Essex Justices ex parte Final QBD 1963
Magistrates had announced a case to be proved, but had then been persuaded to reconsider their verdict.
Held: The magistrates became functus officio, and had no remaining jurisdiction to substitute a different verdict, either way. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.186520

Rawlinson and Hunter Trustee and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Central Criminal Court and Another: Admn 31 Jul 2012

The claimants sought to have search warrants issued under the 1987 Act set aside, saying that they had been procured by non-disclosure and misrepresentation.
Held: The search warrants were set aside: ‘the fact that one or more suspects have already had an opportunity to collude does not necessarily mean that they should be given a further opportunity to do so, especially where collusion has already occurred.’

Judges:

Sir John Thomas P, Silber J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 2254 (Admin), [2013] Lloyd’s Rep FC 132, [2013] 1 WLR 1634

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1987 2(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Main judgmentRawlinson and Hunter Trustees Sa and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Central Criminal Court and Another Admn 15-Nov-2012
. .
CitedLord Hanningfield of Chelmsford v Chief Constable of Essex Police QBD 15-Feb-2013
The claimant sought damages alleging unlawful arrest and search and detention. He had served a term of imprisonment for having made false expenses claims to the House of Lords. This raid occurred on his release. The arrest was planned and made to . .
CitedMills and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Sussex Police and Another Admn 25-Jul-2014
The claimants faced criminal charges involving allegations of fraud and corruption. They now challenged by judicial review a search and seizure warrant saying that it was unlawful. A restraint order had been made against them and they had complied . .
CitedMcCann v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 21-Aug-2015
Appeal by case stated against conviction for obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty. The appellant had been protesting. She, correctly, thought the land to be a rivate highway. The police officer had thought it a public hghway and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Magistrates

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463360

Case XLIX 5 and 6 E6: 1220

An Act of Parliament not printed, ordains, that the quarter-sessions to be held for the county of Anglesey, shall he held at Beaumarrice in that county, and not elsewhere ; indictments of felony were found at Newburgh in the said county against several persons at a quarter-sessions held there after the said act; the justices of peace proceeded to take the said indictment although the said act was shewed to them, exemplified under the great seal, before the indictments were found : resolved for law, by all the judges, that these indictnents were void; by reason of the said negative words : and this offence being complained of in the Star-chamber, every one of those justices of peace was fined 5l. Note the moderation of that age in settirig fines in that court. The 25 H. 8, cap. 21, has negative words, that dispensations for benefices shall be granted by the Archibishop of Canterbury, and not otherwise : yet the King’s power is not excluded ; for, by those negative words, it is only intended to exclude all papal dispensations.
Affirmative words in a statute do not take away the common law. The justices of peace may hold their quarter-sessions where they think fit in the county, if they are not restrained as above.

Citations:

6 E 6 1 Cr 275 3 Mar Dyer, [1220] EngR 550, (1220-1623) Jenk 212, (1220) 145 ER 144 (C)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates, Constitutional

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.461462

Shufflebottom v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester: Admn 7 Feb 2003

The magistrates were asked to make a finding against a dog which was kept within their jurisdiction, but where the incident upon which the application was based, had occurred in Scotland. The appellant contended it should have been heard in Scotland because of section 52 of the 1980 Act.
Held: The 1871 Act conferred a civil jurisdiction, and was related to its care. The section was intended to encourage dangerous dogs to be restrained properly. The case fell within the second or third categories of section 52, and the magistrates had jurisdiction.

Judges:

Mackay J

Citations:

Times 13-Feb-2003, [2003] EWHC 246 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Dogs Act 1871 2, Magistrates Courts Act 1980 52

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Police, Animals, Magistrates

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.179123

Parish v Director of Public Prosecutions (Orse Parrish v Director of Public Prosecutions): QBD 1 Nov 1999

The defendant motorist was accused of driving with excess alcohol. There had been a difference in readings between two samples taken within a short time of each other.
Held: He should have been allowed an adjournment to bring his own expert witness to explain the discrepancy. A breath test taken only a short time after the one relied upon had produced a result which was lawful. The cases did not mean that it was not possible to contradict the findings of a blood test.

Judges:

Tuckey LJ, Moses J

Citations:

Times 02-Mar-2000, [2000] RTR 143

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedNelson v Thompson 1985
. .

Cited by:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Road Traffic

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.84574

McKerry v Teesdale and Wear Valley Justices: CACD 7 Feb 2000

Appeal from order dispensing with reporting restrictions for 16 year old before Youth Court. Appellant constituted a serious danger to the public and had shown a complete disregard for the law.
Held: ‘ the justices were very carefully and conscientiously exercising the power conferred by the statute. It was for them to make a judgment and exercise their discretion and they did so. They did not conclude that the public interest would be served by publishing the appellant’s address or his photograph or details of his school. They did, however, consider that there was a public interest to be served by permitting publication of his name. This was in my judgment a balanced and judicious decision which cannot be stigmatised as perverse or unreasonable simply because the justices declined to decide wholly one way or wholly the other.’

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill LCJ

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Crim 3553, (2000) 164 JP 355, [2001] EMLR 5, [2000] Crim LR 594

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children and Young Persons Act 1933 49(4A)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, Magistrates, Media

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.655468

The Duke of Douglas v John Lockhart of Lee, and James Somervel of Corehouse Et E Contra: HL 27 Mar 1755

An action was raised against Justices of Peace for neglect and failure in the performance of their duty. They pleaded the Act 24 Geo. II., c. 44, as protecting them in the execution of their office. Held that this Act applied to Scotland. Reversed in the House of Lords.

Citations:

[1755] UKHL 6 – Paton – 706

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Magistrates

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.558225

Regina v Telford Justices, ex parte Badhan: CACD 1991

The defendant was accused of a sexual offence alleged to have been committed some 15 years earlier. He asked the magistrates to dismiss the charge as an abuse of process, and now appealed their refusal.
Held: The onus was on the accused to show, to a civil standard that a fair trial could not now take place, but if he did so, the magistrates had power to refuse to inquire into the allegation if it would be an abuse of process to do so, and: ‘where the period of delay is long, it can be legitimate for the court to infer prejudice without proof of specific prejudice.’
A long delay in a complaint may be more significant where the case depends on oral testimony.
Whoever asserts the abuse of process must prove it and to do so on the balance of probabilities.

Judges:

Mann LJ

Citations:

[1991] 2 QB 78, [1991] 2 All ER 854, (1991) 93 Cr App R 171, [1991] 2 WLR 866

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Derby Crown Court, ex parte Brooks QBD 1985
The court set out the characteristics of abuse of process in criminal matters. It may be an abuse of process if: ‘the prosecution have manipulated or misused the process of the court so as to deprive the defendant of a protection provided by the law . .
CitedRegina v Klisiak; Regina v Ramsgate Justices, ex parte Warren 1981
. .

Cited by:

CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions and others v Tokai and others PC 12-Jun-1996
(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant had been charged in 1981 with offences alleged to have been committed shortly before. The proceedings continued until his appeal for one was dismissed in 1988. The wounding charges were proceeded with only in . .
FollowedRegina v JAK CACD 1992
The defendant was accused of rape and other indecent assaults going back some 20 years. He appealed against a refusal of a stay on the grounds of abuse of process given the very long delay before any complaint was made.
Held: The application . .
CitedRegina v Khan and Others CACD 7-Oct-2011
The appellants challenged their convictions for the fraudulent use of falsely completed applications to vote by post. They said that the prosecutors had failed properly to disclose other postal applications also suspected and collected by the . .
CitedGadd, Regina v QBD 10-Oct-2014
The prosecutor sought leave to bring a voluntary bill of indictment, to pursue historic sex abuse allegations against the defendant. The defendant objected to counts founded on facts which were the substance of a charge of indecent assault . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.188239

Anwar-Lindley, Regina (on the Application Of) v Lancashire Justices: Admn 12 Apr 2005

The applicant sought judicial review of a refusal by magistrates to state a case for the high court having convicted her of driving with excess alcohol. The magistrates had admitted an error and had indicated that they would not resist an application to quash the conviction.
Held: While the court made the order, the magistrates should have stated the basis upon which the conviction was to be quashed.

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1214 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic, Magistrates

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.227044

Tuck v Vehicle Inspectorate: Admn 24 Mar 2004

The defendant appealed a conviction for exceeding the gross permitted weight on a goods vehicle. The magistrates having heard the case, the defendant submitted there was no case to answer, the prosecution having failed to bring evidence as to the plate attached to the vehicle. The magistrates allowed the inspector to be recalled.
Held: The magistrates’ had a limited discretion to allow a party to re-open his case. In this case the additional evidence was not merely formal and technical, but no loss had been occasiond to the defendant. Appeal dismissed.

Judges:

Kennedy LJ, Kackay J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 728 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 80(10(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Pilcher 1974
The prosecutor had closed his case, and the defendant had presented some evidence. It became clear that the prosecutor had failed to present evidence on one element, and the defendant appealed his conviction after the prosecutor had been allowed to . .
CitedRegina v Tate CACD 1977
At the close of a prosecution case for driving with excess alcohol, the appellant stated that he would not give or call evidence. He then submitted that the jury should be directed to consider only the admissible evidence of the analyst called who . .
CitedRegina v Francis CACD 1990
The prosecution had omitted to bring evidence that the person standing at No.20 on an identification parade was the appellant. The defence complained that the prosecutor had been allowed to re-open his case.
Held: ‘The discretion of the judge . .
CitedMorris v Matthews CA 1981
On a prosecution for theft, the prosecution failed to read a statement from the owner of the property, which statement had been served on the defence pursuant to Section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. It was submitted that there was no case to . .
CitedRegina v Vincent Munnery CACD 1992
On a charge of burglary, the prosecution had not brought evidence that the appellant was one of those who carried cartons out of Liberty’s department store. The court allowed the prosecutor to re-open his case to present that evidence.
Held: . .
CitedChristopher James Jolly v Director of Public Prosections Admn 31-Mar-2000
At trial in the magistrates court, the prosecution had failed to bring evidence that the computer used to analyse the defendant’s breath alcohol was in proper working condition. The defendant submitted no case to answer, and the magistrates allowed . .
CitedKhatibi v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 28-Jan-2004
. .
CitedGillespie Bros and Co Ltd v Roy Bowles Transport Ltd CA 1973
The court looked at how it should construe the Canada Steamship guidelines with regard to an exemption clause absolving one party of responsibility for negligence. There was a express reference to negligence by the words ‘save harmless and keep . . . .

Cited by:

CitedTraves, Regina (on the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 30-Jun-2005
The defendant appealed conviction involving allegations that he was driving. He was sat at the wheel of a vehicle being towed by means of a rigid steel bar. He denied that he was driving, but had both steered and braked.
Held: The magistrates . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Magistrates

Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.195646

Essen v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 12 May 2005

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1077 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 4(1) 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Magistrates

Updated: 12 October 2022; Ref: scu.226277

Fearnley 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 was type approved. The defendant had brought no evidence to suggest otherwise. The magistrates had exercised a discretion, and that decision was not appealable. They were entitled to be satisfied as to the authenticity of the device under section 24 of the 1988 Act.
Field J said that although the defence statement purported to put the prosecution specifically to proof that the software was UK 5.23, that did not mean that the prosecution has specifically to prove this matter. A general presumption flowed from the fact that the machine was of a type that had been approved. This presumption was plainly consistent with Article 6 ECHR. Thus it was for the appellant to adduce some evidence that the software was otherwise than the specified software. At no stage did the appellant adduce such evidence and therefore he could have no substantial complaint that the prosecution were allowed to provide specific proof of the software through the engineer’s report

Judges:

Brooke LJ, Field J

Citations:

Times 06-Jul-2005, [2005] EWHC 1393 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 24

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCoxon 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Magistrates, Human Rights

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.228581

Wandsworth, Regina (on the Application Of) v South Western Magistrates Court: Admn 1 May 2003

The HSE sought answers from the company, and prosecuted when it got none. They sought judicial review of the magistrates decision to refuse a case stated.
Held: The answers sought were under a section which disallowed any prosecution of the person answering, and therefore the section was to be construed widely. As such there was a clear power to require answers, including answers in writing. The case was remitted to be heard by a different tribunal.

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1158 (Admin), [2003] ICR 1287

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 20(2)(j), Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority) Regulations 1989

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health and Safety, Magistrates

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.185362

Regina 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 warrant.
Held: They were

Judges:

Laws LJ

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Admin 917

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 18

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSykes 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.139038

Regina 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 application, now sought judicial review of the award of his costs.
Held: Lord Denning would have held that the justices had no jurisdiction to award costs, but Sir George Baker and Sir Stanley Rees disagreed.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘I must say that I am most surprised by the order of the justices. The police had done nothing wrong at all. They had taken possession of these currency notes – absolutely properly – because they were reasonably suspected by them to have been stolen. They retained them pending trial equally properly. They were absolutely right not to deliver them without a court order. If they had given them up to Mr. Prasad and the true owners had turned up afterwards, the police would have been liable in damages to the true owners. Only by a court order would they be protected. Viewed in the eyes of the civil law, the police were bailees of the goods. Their custody was like that of a sheriff – custodia legis. Faced with a claimant, the sheriff is entitled to inter-plead and to get his costs as a first charge so long as he acts properly, but he is never bound to pay any costs. So also when the police have goods in custodia legis, and act perfectly properly in regard to them, they should not be ordered to pay costs.’
Sir Stanley Rees said: ‘The proceedings before us do not include any issue or argument as to the propriety of the exercise of the discretion of the justices to make the order for costs which they did in favour of the complainant. Nevertheless, I share the considerable degree of unease in regard to the order for costs which is evident in the judgments delivered by Lord Denning M.R. in this court and in the judgments delivered in the Divisional Court by Donaldson L.J. and Kilner Brown J. [1981] 1 W.L.R. 112. If, as I am satisfied is the case, the justices are empowered to make an order for costs in proceedings by complaint and summons under the Police (Property) Act 1897 where there is a complainant and a defendant, their discretion must be exercised having regard to the exceptional and perhaps unique nature of the order sought and to the respective roles of the parties concerned. In a case in which the police have clearly indicated that they do not oppose the making of the order sought and are merely attending before the justices to confirm their attitude and to ensure that an appropriate order is made before the property is delivered to the complainant, it would indeed be difficult to justify any order for costs against the police. Even in a case in which the police do not consent to the order sought by the claimant or claimants but attend the hearing and the justices are satisfied that it was reasonable for them to do so in order to assist the court to assess the validity of the claim or claims made to the ownership of the property, it would be proper for no order for costs to be made against the police, even if the order for delivery of the property sought by a claimant were made. In short, in my judgment, the proper approach to an application for costs in such proceedings should most certainly not be on the basis that costs should simply follow the event, but rather that the discretion to award them should be sparingly exercised, having regard to the exceptional nature of the role of the police as custodians of the property in issue, who require an order of the court to protect them before the delivery up of the property to a claimant.’
Sir George Baker said: ‘I have had the advantage of reading the judgment about to be delivered by Sir Stanley Rees and wish to say that I entirely agree with him about the undesirability of justices making orders for costs in cases like the present.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Sir George Baker and Sir Stanley Rees

Citations:

[1981] 1 QB 829

Statutes:

Police (Property) Act 1897 1(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedPerinpanathan, 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, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Magistrates, Costs

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.401965

Johnson, Regina (on The Application of) v Birmingham Magistrates’ Court and Another: Admn 3 Feb 2012

The defendant sought judicial review of a period of imprisonment in excess of 8 years imposed on him for failing to comply with a confiscation order.

Judges:

Moses LJ, Irwin

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 596 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980

Magistrates, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.452681

A (A Child), Regina (on the Application of) v Leeds Magistrate’s Court and Another: Admn 19 Mar 2004

The father sought judicial review of an anti-social behaviour order (ASBO) made in respect of his son.
Held: Although the child’s best interests remained a primary consideration when making such an order, they were not the primary consideration. Where it was not alleged that the behaviour did not justify an order and application for judicial review was inappropriate.

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 554 (Admin), Times 31-Mar-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Crime and Disorder Act 1998 1D

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedKenny, Regina (on the Application of) v Leeds Magistrates Court, Leeds City Council Admn 5-Dec-2003
In cases involving children, Article 3 provides that the best interests of the child are a primary consideration, not the primary consideration.
The court looked at the test for making an interim ASBO: ‘Consideration of whether it is just to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.194697

Morgan, Regina (on the Application of) v Justices of Dyfed Powys Magistrates’ Court: Admn 18 Jun 2003

Money had been taken by the Police, but after the applicants had been acquitted, they sought it to be returned. Their action was struck out after long delays. They applied to the Magistrates who turned down the application.
Held: The money should be returned ‘ . . once it is clear that the claimant is entitled to possession of the money, then he must, within the terms of the 1897 Act, be treated as the person appearing to the court to be the owner thereof. It does not, of course, mean that he is necessarily the owner; and there is an opportunity for someone who claims to be the owner to take proceedings within six months against the person in possession of the property.’ The magistrates had been wrong to concentrate on possible but unproven misbehaviour, and the money should be returned.

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1568 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police (Property) Act 1897 1(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedMichael v Gowland 1977
The case stated procedure has a strict requirement that it be begun within 21 days. There is no discretion to extend that time limit. . .
CitedWebb v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police CA 26-Nov-1999
The Police had confiscated money suspected to be the proceeds of drug trafficking, but no offence was proved. The magistrates had refused to return the money under the 1897 Act. The claimants now sought to reciver it under civil proceedings.
CitedRegina (on the application of Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police) v Daventry Justices 2001
Appeals against decisions by magistrates under the Act can be by way of application for judicial review. . .
CitedRegina (on the application of Carter) v Ipswich Magistrates’ Court Admn 2002
Mrs Carter had paid a man to murder someone. The man was an undercover police agent. In time Mrs Carter was convicted of soliciting to commit murder, but Mr Carter was acquitted. She disclaimed all interest in the money she had paid in favour of her . .
CitedCostello v Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary CA 22-Mar-2001
The police seized a car from Mr Costello, believing that it was stolen. The seizure was lawful at the time, by virtue of section 19 of PACE. The police never brought any criminal proceedings against Mr Costello, but they refused to return the car to . .
CitedRaymond Lyons and Co Ltd v Metropolitan Police Commissioner QBD 1975
A suspected thief had left a valuable ring with the claimant jewellers for valuation. They reported the matter to the police and handed the ring to them. The suspected thief never reappeared, and no-one claiming to be the true owner emerged. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Magistrates

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.185612