Regina v Gravesend Magistrates Court ex parte Baker: Admn 16 Apr 1997

The defendant appealed a refusal of legal aid. She wished to establish that her drink had been spiked, and thus to establish special reasons for not being disqualified for driving with excess alcohol.
Held: Expert evidence would assist the magistrates in deciding the matter. That would not be available without expert evidence, and therefore legal aid was necessary.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mccowan -And- Mr Justice Popplewell

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 373

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v O’Connor and Chapman and Others 1991
The court looked at the elements needed to be established to support a defence to a charge of driving with excess alcohol on the basis that the defendant’s drinks had been spiked: ‘On the authorities, it is now clearly established that the matters . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Vincent QBD 1992
(Year?) ‘From the authorities the following principles can be established. Firstly, it is for the defendant on the balance of probability to establish that his drink had been laced unknown to him. Secondly, it is very rarely that a court will be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Magistrates, Legal Aid

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.137318

Regina v Birmingham Justices ex parte Patrick: Admn 17 Apr 1997

The defendant appealed against orders for her committal to prison for non-payment of Council Tax.

Judges:

McCullough

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 378

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Community Charge (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989 41, Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 47

Rating, Magistrates

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.137323

Regina v Derby and South Derbyshire Magistrate’s Court, ex parte Leandro Pitzettu: Admn 13 Mar 1997

The defendant faced a charge of driving with excess alcohol. His solicitors indicated he would plead guilty, and sought disclosure of police material which they anticipated would support his application for special reasons for not disqualifying him, namely that he had driven only a very short distance. They now appealed a refusal to order CPS to disclose such material. It was held that, in a summary case there was indeed no such power.

Citations:

HC Admin 260

Links:

Bailii

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.137205

Regina v Knightsbridge Crown Court, Commissioner of Police for Metropolitan Police, Wells Street Magistrates’ Court ex parte Leslie Victor Crabbe: Admn 18 Dec 1996

The appeal challenged a finding that a dog was a pit bull terrier, unregistered, and to be destroyed. A decision had been made not to prosecute the owner. He now challenged the finding that it was of a type to which the Act applied. The appellant had had opportunity to obtain access for an expert, but would not pay the fees. The dog was found to be a pit bull. The appellant appealed, and the dog was examined before it was admitted that no appeal to the Crown Court lay against an order under s5(4).
Held: The fees charged were too high and the Commissioner had failed to take proper account of the appellant’s means. The meaning of subsection 5(4) and 5(5) are not clear. The absence of aright of appeal made it even more important that the dog and owner be given a fair trial.

Judges:

Lord Justice McCowan and Mr Justice Collins

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 380

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 5(4) 5(5)

Crime, Animals, Magistrates

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136928

Regina v Newark Justices ex parte Keenaghan and R v Stockport Justices ex parte Conlon: Admn 18 Dec 1996

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 382

Links:

Bailii

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

Magistrates

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136930

Regina v Liverpool Stipendiary Magistrate ex parte Santos: Admn 15 Nov 1996

A solicitor’s mistake as to the return date on a bail notice was capable of being a reasonable cause for a defendant’s non-attendance at court to answer bail. The answer will be different in each case.

Citations:

Times 23-Jan-1997, [1996] EWHC Admin 235

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Bail Act 1976 6(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136783

Regina v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions (Case of Okiya): Admn 30 Oct 1996

The court considered what were the circumstances under which the Divisional Court should exercise its discretion to quash the decision of the magistrates to assume jurisdiction rather than to commit a case for trial.

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 172

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Stamford Magistrates ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 31-Jul-1997
A challenge was made as to whether the magistrates had jurisdiction in an allegation of burglary, or whether the case should have been committed to the Crown Court. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136720

Uttlesford District Council v Barnes: Admn 25 Oct 1996

The case came before the court as a case stated. The court returned it saying that the papers prepared were far too long. The magistrates should state their findings of fact which are relevant to the issues which give rise to the questions for which they seek answers from the High Court. They should say what the contentions of the parties were and then they should state what questions they ask the High Court to answer. The court has power to direct a re-statement of the case.

Judges:

Mr Justice Jowitt

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 155

Links:

Bailii

Magistrates

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136703

Regina v Epping and Ongar Justices (Sitting At Saffron Walden) ex parte Christopher Charles Corcoran: Admn 21 Oct 1996

The defendant was accused of driving whilst disqualified. His defence was that his girlfriend had been driving. Before she was called the magistrates’ clerk said he would warn her of a risk of prosecution for perjury.
Held: The warning was unfair. There was nothing to distinguish this witness from any other, and the warning had the effect of putting her under pressure. The conviction was quashed.

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 132

Links:

Bailii

Magistrates

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136680

Regina v Bow Street Magistrates ex parte Kazuhiro Sakashita and Takumi Hashimoto: Admn 15 Oct 1996

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 110

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

CitedRegina v Bow St Stipendiary Magistrate Ex Parte South Coast Shipping and Others QBD 18-Nov-1992
A private prosecution was allowed after the Director of Public Prosecutions decided not to prosecute in the case of the deaths in the sinking of the Bowbelle Marchioness. Lloyd LJ discussed what would amount to abuse of process: ‘Manipulation or . .
CitedRegina v Brentford Justices Ex parte Wong QBD 1981
The defendant had been involved in a traffic accident. Very shortly before the expiry of the six month time limit, the prosecutor issued a careless driving summons apparently in order to preserve the possibility of a prosecution without yet having . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136658

Regina v Southwark Crown Court ex parte Lynne Brooke: Admn 15 Oct 1996

Simon Brown LJ said that if there was an arguable case for acceding to an application for a case to be stated, then the application was not frivolous.

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 114, [1997] COD 81

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

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

Magistrates

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136662

Horner v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 11 Nov 2005

The defendant appealed by way of case stated from a conviction for failing to identify the driver of a vehicle as required. The defendant argued that he had not been shown to be the registered keeper.
Held: It was difficult to establish from the stated case just what evidence had been presented. The case was returned to be restated.

Judges:

Mr Justice Penry-Davey Lord Justice Maurice Kay

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2918 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 172(8)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.237821

Regina v Ealing Magistrates ex parte Ralph Burgess: QBD 3 Jan 1999

The court upheld a Magistrate’s decision to proceed in the absence of a defendant.

Citations:

Unreported, 03 January 1999, CO 4013/99

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedJohnson, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 8-Dec-2005
The defendant sought judicial review of a decision by the magistrates to proceed with criminal charges against him in his absence. He suffered confirmed depression. There were several adjournments.
Held: ‘despite the unsatisfactory and indeed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.238188

Ronald and John Popely and Another v D G Scott (Kent County Council): Admn 21 Dec 2000

This was an appeal by way of case stated. The appellants were alleged to have offered timeshare contracts without notification of cancellation rights. A director claimed he was unfit to attend, but the trial proceeded in his absence. He had, the day before, attended a conference with counsel.
Held: Given the medical evidence before them, the magistrates should undoubtedly have allowed an adjournment. The schemes had been constructed so that the purchaser bought shares in a company rather than simply a timeshare. However the magistrates were correct to conclude that this was a timeshare agreement dressed as a share agreement. The magistrates had not effectively considered the opinions of counsel obtained by the respondent and which were capable of establishing a due diligence defence.

Judges:

Lord Justice Rose And The Hon Mrs Justice Rafferty

Citations:

[2000] EWHC Admin 441

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Timeshare Act 1992, Magistrates Courts Act 1980 8 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Bolton Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Merna; Regina v Richmond Justices, ex parte Haines 1991
The divisional court should intervene where a defendant has been deprived of a fair opportunity to present his case because of his own unavoidable absence. . .
CitedRegina v Chippenham Justices ex parte Harris QBD 28-Jan-1994
. .
CitedRegina v Birmingham City Magistrates’ Court ex parte David Frank Booth Admn 12-May-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Consumer, Land

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135629

Wood v North Avon Magistrates Court: Admn 10 Nov 2009

The claimant sought to have quashed a search warrant issued by the respondent.
Held: A judge issuing a warrant needs to give reasons for his decision. They need not be elaborate but they ought to be sufficient to enable the subject of the warrant to understand why the judge was satisfied that the evidence justified issuing it.

Judges:

Moses LJ, Simon J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 3614 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Magistrates, Police

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.401949

Regina (on the Application of the Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police) v Birmingham Justices: Admn 30 May 2002

The Chief Constable applied for anti-social behaviour orders, but the applications were made by his officers under purported delegated powers. The district judge rejected the applications saying that the power to make such an application could not be delegated. The Chief Constable appealed.
Held: He did have a general power of delegation of powers given to him under statute. He remained answerable for his choice of appropriate officers to carry out tasks so delegated. The court however could not interfere in the absence of some irrationality or other manifest error.
courtcommentary.com ‘Carltona’ principle does not depend on status of civil servants as alter ego of their minister. Chief Constable may discharge functions under ss (1) and (2) Crime and Disorder Act 1998 through any officer(s) judged suitable by him for whom he is answerable

Judges:

Lord Justice Sedley, Poole

Citations:

Gazette 11-Jul-2002, [2002] EWHC 1087 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Crime and Disorder Act 1998 81

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSheffield City Council v Ali Admn 7-Jul-2005
The taxi driver had been acquitted for making a false statement to support his application. The magistrates had found that the form he had been requested to use had not been approved properly by the authority. It was accepted that the information, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Magistrates

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.172186

Riley v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 1990

A police officer is not acting in the execution of his duty by arresting or detaining someone unless that arrest or detention is lawful. Justices are not entitled to infer that a police officer was acting in the course of his duty in carrying out a search pursuant to section 18 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act from his bare, albeit unchallenged assertion in evidence that he was carrying out such a search.
Watkins LJ, gave guidance as to the form in which a case should be stated saying: ‘The Justices must endeavour to ensure in stating a case that, (1) the whole of their findings of fact are contained in one and of course an early paragraph of the case . . ‘

Judges:

Watkins LJ

Citations:

(1990) 91 Cr App R 14

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 18

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBlench v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 5-Nov-2004
The defendant appealed against his conviction for assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty under section 89. He had argued that he had no case to answer. The officers had received an emergency call to the house, but the female caller . .
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.

Crime, Police, Magistrates

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.425321

Regina v Dudley Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Power City Stores Limited and Another: CA 1990

The defendant sought to recover the cost of employing leading counsel to defend him in the magistrates court after succeeding. The magistrates had disallowed the costs of leading counsel.
Held: The fact that the defendant could have obtained the same services at a much lower price than that average elsewhere is irrelevant. Pill LJ described the first test to be applied by the costs clerk on the taxation of costs in the magistrates court: ‘In order to fulfil the requirements of stage one he has to ask himself, first of all, whether the expenses are ones which are properly incurred by the defendant.’
Woolf LJ said that in seeking to apply the statute and the Regulations the clerk to the justices had asked himself the wrong question. He asked himself if a junior counsel or a senior solicitor could reasonably have conducted the case on behalf of the applicants, and answered that question in the affirmative. What he should have asked himself was ‘whether the applicant acted reasonably in employing leading counsel’. If the answer to that question was in the affirmative then the expenses were properly incurred for the purposes of section 16.
He continued: ‘Having regard to the nature of the case, which I have already described, it is quite impossible for it to be said that the defendants were acting improperly in instructing leading counsel.’ and ‘I would content myself by making an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the justices’ clerk, being confident that when the justices’ clerk reconsiders the matter, as he is required to do, and reassesses what are the proper expenses to be paid, he will approach the matter in the way indicated in the judgment which I have just given. In other words he will come to the conclusion in this case, which is the only conclusion which I would regard as being proper, that it was reasonable to engage leading counsel and merely confine himself to considering what fees are properly recoverable in respect of the instruction of leading counsel.’

Judges:

Pill LJ, Woolf LJ

Citations:

[1990] JP 654

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985 16(6) 16(7)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedThe Law Society of England and Wales, Regina (on The Application of) v The Lord Chancellor Admn 15-Jun-2010
Costs restriction not made under Act
The respondent had introduced rules which restricted the levels of costs which might be awarded from central funds to a successful defendant in a criminal trial who had take private representation. The amendment was made under powers in the 1985 . .
CitedRoyal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust v Acres QBD 22-Mar-2013
The defendant challenged the use by the claimant of solicitors from Central London in her claim for personal injury. She was a radiographer, and her work involved exposure to dangerous materials, though in this case it arose from use of machinery . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Magistrates

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.416820

Blankley v Winstanley And Another: 19 May 1789

A charter granting jurisdiction to borough magistrates over a district not within the borough does not exclude the county justices without express words. And though such charter contain words of reference to former charters in which exclusive jurisdiction is given to the borough justices within the borough, and add that they shall have jurisdiction within the new district in tam amplis modo et forma, and c. yet if there be in the latter charter a saving clause of the rights of the Crown and of all other persons, the borough magistrates have only a concurrent jurisdiction with the county justices. Where the words of a charter are doubtful, they may be explained by long usage (a).

Citations:

[1789] EngR 2471, (1789) 3 TR 279, (1789) 100 ER 574

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.368102

Fox v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: QBD 3 Jul 2002

The claimant had been stopped by customs. He had imported various items which it was alleged exceeded the amounts appropriate for personal use. The goods had been mixed with those of his travelling companion. At trial he sought to challenge the fact that the Customs had treated his and his companion’s goods together.
Held: The provision allowing forfeiture of any goods found with contraband did not mean that a claimant could not bring evidence to challenge the assertions made by Customs and Excise. To hold to the contrary would infringe the claimant’s property rights.

Judges:

Mr Justice Lightman

Citations:

Times 20-Jul-2002, Gazette 12-Sep-2002

Statutes:

Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 141(1)(b), European Convention on Human Rights Sch 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise, Magistrates, Human Rights

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.174440

Regina (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Prestatyn Magistrates’ Court: QBD 28 May 2002

The defendants were charged with criminal damage to genetically modified crops in a field. They sought trial by jury but would only have a right to such a trial if the value damaged exceeded pounds 5,000. The crops would not have been made available on the market for sale, and no value was immediately ascertainable.
Held: The value was not readily ascertainable, and they represented substantial investment. Accordingly the district judge was correct to treat the value as unascertained and therefore the offence was triable either way.

Judges:

Lord Justice Sedley and Mr Justice Gage

Citations:

Gazette 11-Jul-2002, Times 17-Oct-2002

Statutes:

Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.174318

Regina v West London Licensing Justices, ex parte Davis: QBD 16 Mar 1994

A pronouncement by Justices was of no legal effect, having been made ultra vires, and so no certiorari order was necessary or capable of being made to correct it.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Jun-1994, Gazette 30-Mar-1994, Times 16-Mar-1994

Statutes:

Licensing Act 1964 20

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates, Licensing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88289

Regina 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.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Magistrates refusing to state a case should give brief reasons as to why they considered the application to be frivolous.
The court gave some direction as to the meaning of ‘frivolous’ for this purpose. The only basis upon which a court can properly refuse to state a case is where it is ‘misconceived’ or ‘hopeless’.

Lord Bingham LCJ said: ‘I think it very unfortunate that the expression ‘frivolous’ ever entered the lexicon of procedural jargon. To the man or woman in the street ‘frivolous’ is suggestive of light-heartedness or a propensity to humour and these are not qualities associated with most appellants or prospective appellants. What the expression means in this context is, in my view, that the court considers the application to be futile, misconceived, hopeless or academic. That is not a conclusion to which justices to whom an application to state a case is made will often or lightly come. It is not a conclusion to which they can properly come simply because they consider their decision to be right or immune from challenge. Still less is it a conclusion to which they can properly come out of a desire to obstruct a challenge to their decision or out of misplaced amour propre. But there are cases in which justices can properly form an opinion that an application as frivolous. Where they do, it will be very helpful to indicate, however briefly, why they form that opinion. A blunt and unexplained refusal, as in this case, may well leave an applicant entirely uncertain as to why the justices regard an application futile, misconceived, hopeless or academic. Such uncertainty is liable to lead to unnecessary litigation and expenditure on costs. ‘

Judges:

Lord Bingham LCJ

Citations:

Times 16-May-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 1575, (1997) 161 JP 401, [1997] COD 352, (1997) 161 JPN 602, [1998] Env LR 9

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 111(5), Environmental Protection Act 1990 79(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedNorman v Mathews 1916
The court set out the criteria for assessing whether an action was frivolous in law. Lush J said: ‘It must appear that his alleged cause of action is one which on the face of it is clearly one which no reasonable person could properly treat as bona . .
CitedRegina v Southwark Crown Court ex parte Lynne Brooke Admn 15-Oct-1996
Simon Brown LJ said that if there was an arguable case for acceding to an application for a case to be stated, then the application was not frivolous. . .
EndorsedBracegirdle 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 . .
CitedRegina v Betting Licensing Committee Cardiff Petty Sessions, ex parte Les Croupiers Casino Limited 13-Apr-1992
The court considered what would constitute frivolous proceedings on a request to magistrates to state a case.
Held: The expression meant that there was no possible prospect of a case succeeding because there was no substance in the request . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Knightsbridge Crown Court ex parte Foot Admn 29-Jan-1998
A device which tested for police radar speed check did not intercept a message between persons and therefore was not unlawful. ‘a signal in this context is not a mere electronic impulse but is rather a sign or something of meaning to another person. . .
CitedRegina v Kettering Magistrates’ Court ex parte MRB Insurance Brokers Limited Admn 4-Apr-2000
A statement of an APR in the sale of a financial services product remained a price indication, and, if it was miscalculated, that was a misleading price indication, and criminal, despite provisions in the Consumer Credit legislation. What was given . .
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.

Magistrates

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88558

Regina v Clerkenwell Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex Parte Hooper: Admn 28 Jan 1998

A Court requiring a surety before binding a defendant over must give the defendant an opportunity to make representations before rejecting that surety.

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ, Mance J

Citations:

Times 28-Jan-1998, [1999] 1 Cr App R 345, [1998] EWHC Admin 41, [1998] 1 WLR 800

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

CitedHooper v United Kingdom ECHR 16-Nov-2004
The defendant had appeared in court on a charge of assault. The magistrate considered that he might be unruly and withoutmore bound him over to keep the peace. In the absence of any surety, he was committed to custody.
Held: The proceedings . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86401

Regina v Doncaster Justices ex parte Hannan: QBD 16 Jul 1998

A Magistrates order imposing a suspended sentence of imprisonment against a defendant in his absence for non-payment of a compensation order was invalid where there was apparent uncertainty as to whether he had been served with notice of the hearing.

Citations:

Gazette 26-Aug-1998, Times 12-Oct-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 756

Links:

Bailii

Magistrates

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86560

Regina v Ealing Magistrates’ Court ex parte Satnam Sahota: QBD 10 Nov 1997

A delay in appeal against a decision taken in the absence of the accused is not the sole ground to be considered for the refusal of a rehearing.

Citations:

Gazette 26-Nov-1997, Times 09-Dec-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 993

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Appeal Act 1995

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86609

Regina (Wardle) v Leeds Crown Court: HL 24 May 2001

The defendant had been held in custody awaiting committal on a murder charge. An additional charge of manslaughter was added. The defendant argued that this did not constitute a new offence so as to allow an extension of custody time limits.
Held: The issue was the actual information laid before the magistrates and whether the second one constituted a different offence. If it did, the custody time limits restarted in the absence of some abuse. The regulations did not infringe the defendant’s human right to liberty.
Lord Hope said that before having recourse to section 3 one must first be satisfied that the ordinary construction of the provision gives rise to an incompatibility.

Judges:

Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Clyde Lord Scott of Foscote

Citations:

Gazette 24-May-2001, Times 13-Mar-2001, [2001] UKHL 12, [2001] 2 All ER 1, [2001] 2 Cr App Rep 20, [2001] 2 WLR 865, (2001) 165 JPN 327, [2001] ACD 82, (2001) 165 JP 465, [2001] HRLR 29

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offences (Custody Time Limits) Regulations 1987 (1987 No 299) 4, Human Rights Act 1998 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedANS and Another v ML SC 11-Jul-2012
The mother opposed adoption proceedings, and argued that the provision in the 2007 Act, allowing a court to dispense with her consent, infringed her rights under Article 8 and was therefore made outwith the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates, Human Rights

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86017

Regina v Liverpool Magistrates Court, Ex parte Abiaka: QBD 5 Mar 1999

After a bench dismissed a matter, a later bench awarded the defendant his costs. He applied for payment but was refused on basis that it was not the same bench.
Held: It need not be the same bench to dismiss the charge and to order costs. Once justices have made a defendant’s costs order, it is not for the clerk to ignore it. If he believed it wrong in law, he should raise it again with the bench or a reconstituted bench to alter the decision or refer it to a higher court.

Citations:

Times 06-May-1999, Gazette 08-Apr-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 205

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 16(1)

Magistrates, Costs

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85371

Kent County Council v Curtis: QBD 24 Jun 1998

Advertisements placed by a roadway outside a shop were properly found by magistrates not to cause an obstruction, nor to be unsafe or any danger. Magistrates were wrong to seek to alter their decision when stating their case for the divisional court.

Citations:

Gazette 24-Jun-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 639

Links:

Bailii

Planning, Magistrates

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82741

Director of Public Prosecutions v Cottier: QBD 22 Feb 1996

Proceedings against a youth begin at court; notice need not be given to the youth panel before the charge itself is made at police station. When considering whether proceedings have been ‘begun’ in any court for the section Saville LJ, said: ‘We were referred to a number of authorities which considered somewhat similar provisions, but all I glean from those is that the answer to the question when proceedings are instituted or begun depends on the context in which the words are used and the purpose of the provision.’

Judges:

Saville LJ

Citations:

Times 22-Feb-1996, [1996] 1 WLR 826

Statutes:

Children and Young Persons Act 1969 34(2)

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: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79996

Regina v Marylebone Magistrates Court ex parte Andrew Clingham: Admn 20 Feb 2001

The council received a report by a housing trust about the behaviour of the defendant, then aged 16, who lived on an estate within the Borough, and after investigating applied for an anti-social behaviour order. Some witness statements contained first hand evidence, but the application was primarily based on hearsay evidence contained in records of complaints received by the trust and in police crime reports with from allegations of verbal abuse and serious criminal activities including assault, burglary, criminal damage and drug dealing dating from April 1998 to December 2000. Hearsay evidence was served under the 1999 rules. The defendant said the proceedings were criminal.
Held: Hearsay evidence is admissible on an application for an anti-social behaviour order. There is nothing in the jurisdiction of Human Rights to make such evidence inadmissible in civil proceedings, and its admission would not automatically make a criminal trial unfair. The weight to be attached to such evidence must vary according to the circumstances, and the magistrates could sensibly look at the Civil Evidence Act considerations. Such evidence alone might be insufficient for an order, but it should have some weight in most proceedings.
The council sought an anti-social behaviour order against the applicant. He challenged the admission against him of hearsay evidence.

Judges:

Schiemann LJ, Poole J

Citations:

Times 20-Feb-2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 582

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts (Hearsay Evidence in Civil Proceedings) Rules 1999 681, Crime and Disorder Act 1998 1, Civil Evidence Act 1995 1 9(2), Human Rights Act 1998 3

Citing:

Appealed toClingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromClingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Human Rights, Magistrates, Evidence

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79228

Bradford City Metropolitan District Council v Booth: QBD 10 May 2000

The local authority had refused to renew a private hire vehicle licence. That refusal was successfully challenged, and the magistrates had awarded costs on the basis that they should follow the event. The authority appealed.
Held: The discretion given to magistrates to award such costs as it feels are just and reasonable does not mean that costs should always and normally follow the event. An authority with a duty to make decisions which suffered a successful challenge to that decision, but where the fault in the decision fell short of being unreasonable, dishonest, or improper, should not normally be ordered to pay the costs. The financial effect on the parties should be assessed, but such challenges are part of the expense of running a business. Section 64 was concerned with both liability for costs and their amount. The only statutory restriction on the power of the magistrates was that they could not make an order for costs against a successful party.
Bingham CJ said: ‘The issue in this appeal by case stated is whether justices erred in the exercise of their discretion by awarding costs against a local authority on a successful complaint against a vehicle licensing decision of the local authority when the local authority had not, in making the decision appealed against, acted unreasonably or in bad faith.’
Later he continued ‘It seems to me that the justices in this case misdirected themselves, first, in relying on a principle that costs should follow the event, that misdirection being compounded by their view that the reference in section 64 to the order being just and reasonable applied to quantum only. On the other hand, in my judgment the submissions made by Mr Blair-Gould on behalf of the local authority go too far the other way since to give effect to the principle for which he contends would deprive the justices of any discretion to view the case in the round which is in my judgment what section 64 intends.
I would accordingly hold that the proper approach to questions of this kind can for convenience be summarised is three propositions:
1. Section 64(1) confers a discretion upon a magistrates’ court to make such order as to costs as it thinks just and reasonable. That provision applies both to the quantum of the costs (if any) to be paid, but also as to the party (if any) which should pay them.
2. What the court will think just and reasonable will depend on all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case before the court. The court may think it just and reasonable that costs should follow the event, but need not think so in all cases covered by the subsection.
3. Where a complainant has successfully challenged before justices an administrative decision made by a police or regulatory authority acting honestly, reasonably, properly and on grounds that reasonably appeared to be sound, in exercise of its public duty, the court should consider, in addition to any other relevant fact or circumstances, both (i) the financial prejudice to the particular complainant in the particular circumstances if an order for costs is not made in his favour; and (ii) the need to encourage public authorities to make and stand by honest, reasonable and apparently sound administrative decisions made in the public interest without fear of exposure to undue financial prejudice if the decision is successfully challenged.’

Judges:

Silber J, Lord Bingham of Cornhill

Citations:

Times 31-May-2000, (2000) COD 338, (2000) 164 JP 485

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts Act 1980 64(1), Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 62(1)(b)

Citing:

CitedRegina v Merthyr Tydfil Crown Court, ex parte Chief Constable Dyfed Powys Police QBD 9-Nov-1998
The Chief Constable, on good grounds, objected to the transfer of a justices’ on-licence to a Mrs W. Mrs W appealed and the Chief Constable, having objected to the transfer, became a respondent. On the appeal Mrs W contended that, since the conduct . .
CitedRegina v Totnes Licensing Justices, ex parte Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall QBD 28-May-1990
The court considered the award of costs in a licensing case. Roch J said: ‘There can be no doubt that in civil proceedings between litigants, be it in the High Court or county court, the principle is that costs follow the event. The winning party . .
CitedChief Constable of Derbyshire v Goodman and Newton Admn 2-Apr-1998
Firearms licences were granted to the two respondents, but then revoked by the Chief Constable. They appealed to the Crown Court and their appeal was allowed. The judge, however, ordered the Chief Constable to pay the costs of the two respondents, . .

Cited by:

CitedBaxendale-Walker v The Law Society Admn 30-Mar-2006
The solicitor appealed being struck off. He had given a character reference in circumstances where he did not have justification for the assessment.
Held: ‘The appellant knew that Barclays Bank trusted him to provide a truthful reference. . .
CitedCambridge City Council v Alex Nestling Ltd QBD 17-May-2006
The council appealed an award of costs against it. The respondent had appealed against a refusal by the council to vary a premises licence for a public house with partial success, and the magistrates had awarded the respondent half its costs.
CitedMastercard UK Members Forum Ltd Mastercard International Inc CAT 28-Jul-2006
. .
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.

Magistrates, Local Government, Costs, Licensing

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78542

Gage v Wren: 1903

Citations:

[1903] 67 JP 32

Cited by:

CitedMakro Properties Limited v Nuneaton and Bedworth BC Admn 2012
A minor use will constitute rateable occupation for the purposes of liability to occupied rates. . .
CitedKenya Aid Programme v Sheffield City Council Admn 22-Jan-2013
The claimant challenged a decision that it was liable for non domestic rates in respect of some commercial units, on the basis that the use by the charity was not itself charitable.
Held: ‘there is no reason for limiting the ambit of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating, Magistrates

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.567243

Regina v Hendon Justices ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 1993

The court considered an application for judicial review by the DPP of a decision to acquit the defendant because the prosecutor had failed to appear for trial.
Held: Dismissing the information, and acquitting the accused had been an unreasonable decision which no reasonable bench could have come to. The acquittal was a nullity and mandamus would issue requiring the justices to hear the informations according to law.
Mann LJ said: ‘However, the duty of the court is to hear informations which are properly before it. The prosecution has a right to be heard and there is a public interest that, save in exceptional circumstances, it should be heard’ and ‘We have already stated that in our judgment the respondent justices’ decision to dismiss the information was outwith their statutory power. It was thus a nullity and could not have sustained a plea of autrefois because there had not been a lawful acquittal.’

Judges:

Mann LJ

Citations:

[1993] 1 All ER 411

Cited by:

CitedCrown Prosecution Service, Regina (on the Application of) v Portsmouth Crown Court Admn 1-May-2003
The CPS appealed against dismissal of their case by the Crown Court after no representative had appeared at court to present the case. Counsel had two cases, and had asked this to be held pending completion of the other which then overran. Counsel . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.470924

45 Ass Pl 3: 3 Jan 1220

An assize is brought before A and B justices, between C and D. A. dies, C, is associated to B. to take this assise, the assise can’t proceed ; for C. can’t be a judge and party in his own cause, and he can’t be summoned and severed ; for this must be awarded by him and the other justice, and he can’t sever himself ; and B can’t proceed alone, for two are appointed to take this assise.

Citations:

[1220] EngR 548, (1220-1623) Jenk 40, (1220) 145 ER 29 (D)

Links:

Commonlii

Magistrates

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.461460

Regina v Liverpool Juvenile Court ex parte R: 1988

R was charged with burglary. He objected to the admission of evidence of a confession to a police officer, saying that it had been improperly obtained. Both prosecution and defence suggested the need for a voir dire, but the magistrates declined.
Held: R’s request for a writ of mandamus succeeded. Once the parties accepted that the admissibility of the alleged statement was contested, he was entitled to have its admissibility tested as a preliminary issue. When magistrates conducting a summary trial are faced with an objection to the admissibility of evidence under ss 76 and/or 78 of PACE, they are obliged to determine the objections forthwith by holding a trial within a trial (voir dire).
Questions put to an investigating officer to test the admissibility of the evidence were not on their own sufficient to give rise to the need for a voir dire.

Judges:

Russell LJ

Citations:

[1988] QB 1, [1987] 2 All ER 668, (1987) 86 Cr App R 1, [1987] Crim LR 572, [1987] 3 WLR 224

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 76 78

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Dhorajiwala CACD 9-Jun-2010
The defendant appealed against her conviction for theft. She had been accused of stealing money over many months from the till at the pharmacy where she worked. She said that a confession in interviews conducted by civilian investigators should not . .
CitedBeeres v Crown Prosecution Service (West Midlands) Admn 13-Feb-2014
The defendant said that his confession should not have been admitted in evidence it having been given when he had not been advised of his rights whilst at the police station because of his inebriation.
Held: The appeal failed. A confession is, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.416720

Regina v Blandford Justices: CA 1990

The applicant had been charged with public order offences and had been remanded in custody by the Magistrates’ Court. He immediately commenced judicial review proceedings on the grounds that he was charged with an offence which was not punishable with a custodial sentence. A few days later he pleaded guilty to the offence and was released but continued with the judicial review proceedings. The Divisional Court had granted his application for judicial review and the Justices appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Held: As a preliminary point, the proceedings were a criminal cause or matter.
Taylor LJ said: ‘The application for judicial review was an application to the Divisional Court to review a decision of an inferior court in criminal proceedings then still in progress and was clearly an application in a criminal cause or matter. But Mr. Sankey says that, by the time the application was heard, the Divisional Court’s judgment was not in a criminal cause or matter since the justices had made their final order. He sought to rationalise this approach by saying that, once the criminal proceedings were concluded in the magistrates’ court, the decision of the Divisional Court could not affect their course and was not, therefore, in the cause or matter ‘at whatever stage of the proceedings.’ But, once the applicant had been granted bail the day after the challenged decision, any review by the Divisional Court of the challenged decision would not have affected the course of the criminal proceedings even if that decision had been made at some later ‘stage of the proceedings’ and before they were concluded. If the Divisional Court’s decision was not in a criminal cause or matter, in what type of proceeding was it made? It cannot have been a decision in vacuo and, for my part, I see no basis in principle or authority for attributing such a chameleon character to a cause or matter as to make it change from criminal to civil simply because the proceedings are concluded or because the review of the decision in such cause or matter may be too late to affect the outcome of the proceedings. In my opinion, the judgment of the Divisional Court in the present case was made in a criminal cause or matter.’

Judges:

Taylor LJ

Citations:

[1990] 1 WLR 1940

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAlexander, Farrelly and Others, Re Judicial Review QBNI 5-Mar-2009
Each claimant said that they had been wrongfully arrested, the arresting police officers having either failed to ask whether the arrest was necessary (Farrelly), or mistakenly concluding so.
Held: The Order now contained in regulation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Judicial Review

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.412281

The Queen v The Inhabitants Of Silkstone: 9 Nov 1842

An examination before examining justices had the following jurat. ”Sworn before me, on,’ and, ” and I do hereby certify that the above examination was read over,’ andc. After this followed the signatures of two justices. The ground of objection was that this examination ‘is illegal and bad, inasmuch as, though signed by two justices, it purports to have been taken before one justice only.’ The sessions having, under stat. 4 and 5 W. 4, c. 76, s. 81, refused to hear evidence in support of the settlement disclosed by the examination, and discharged the order of removal, on this objeetion : Held that, on the objection so taken, the sessions ought not to have rejected the examination. Order of sessions quashed.

Citations:

[1842] EngR 1005, (1842) 2 QB 520, (1842) 114 ER 204

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.307960

The Queen, On The Prosecution Of Mappin And Another v Youle: 29 Apr 1861

By memorandum in writing P agreed to serve M as a cutler for three years, arid M agreed to employ him aid pay him for his work according to a schedule of prices. Having quitted his service during the term, he was convicted under the 4 Geo 4, c. 34, and imprisoned for twenty-one
days, for unlawfully absenting himself from his service After his discharge from prison he did not return to the service of M , but went and worked elsewhere. On a second information laid against him for unlawfully absenting himself from the service, it was proved to the satisfaction of the justices that on the first occasion he absented himself on account of a difference with his master as to the scale of prices, that when, after his discharge from prison, he refused to return, he was advised by his attorney that he was not bound to do so, and the justices stated that they thought very probable that he bona fide believed what his attorney told him. Held; The conviction could not be sustained.

Citations:

[1861] EngR 528, (1861) 6 H and N 753, (1861) 158 ER 311

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Magistrates

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.284289

The King v Mitchell: 1913

The court considered the meaning of section 9 of the 1875 Act which read: ‘Where a person is accused before a Court of summary jurisdiction of any offence made punishable by this Act, and for which a penalty amounting to twenty pounds, or imprisonment, is imposed, the accused may, on appearing before the Court of summary jurisdiction, declare that he objects to being tried for such offence by a Court of summary jurisdiction, and thereupon the Court of summary jurisdiction may deal with the case in all respects as if the accused were charged with an indictable offence and not an offence punishable on summary conviction, and the offence may be prosecuted on indictment accordingly.’
Held: A declaration of objection to being tried by a Court of summary jurisdiction was duly made by a person accused of an offence made punishable by the Act who was entitled to object. Accordingly he had a right to trial by jury and that the justices were bound to give effect to his claim and had no jurisdiction to try the case.

Citations:

[1913] 1 KB 561

Statutes:

Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875 9

Cited by:

CitedPadfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food HL 14-Feb-1968
Exercise of Ministerial Discretion
The Minister had power to direct an investigation in respect of any complaint as to the operation of any marketing scheme for agricultural produce. Milk producers complained about the price paid by the milk marketing board for their milk when . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Magistrates

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.272549

Regina v Ayu: CCA 1959

It is not open to the justices to attach specific conditions to a binding-over order.

Citations:

[1959] 43 CAR 31

Cited by:

CitedHashman and Harrup v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Nov-1999
The defendants had been required to enter into a recognisance to be of good behaviour after disrupting a hunt by blowing of a hunting horn. They were found to have unlawfully caused danger to the dogs. Though there had been no breach of the peace, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.261941

Doble v David Grieg Ltd: 1972

Judges:

Forbes J

Citations:

[1972] All ER 195

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedLewin v Truebell Plc Admn 24-Mar-1997
The prosecutor appealed against dismissal of his claim that the defendants had sold kits advertised to contain 100 pieces, when they said the pack contained only 61 pieces usable seperately. The defendants ponted to 100 pieces, of which 39 were not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.258607

Regina v Clerk to Medway Justices ex parte Department of Health and Social Security: 1986

A magistrate asked to issue a summons is entitled to consider delay, even within any time limit for the bringing of prosecutions and, absent any finding that a fair trial would be impossible, at least if there is wholly unexplained delay which can be regarded as unconscionable.

Citations:

(1986) 150 JP Rep 401

Cited by:

CitedGreen, Regina (on the Application of) v The City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court, Thoday, Thompson Admn 5-Dec-2007
The claimant appealed from the refusal by the magistrate to issue summonses for the prosecution for blashemous libel of the Director General of the BBC and the producers of a show entitled ‘Jerry Springer – The Opera.’
Held: The gist of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.261813

Carden: 1879

Whilst an order may be available to oblige a magistrate to hear and determine a matter properly within his jurisdiction, an order will not be available which seeks ‘to control the magistrate in the conduct of the case or to prescribe to him the evidence which he shall receive or reject’.

Judges:

Cockburn CJ

Citations:

(1879) 5 QBD 1

Cited by:

CitedHoar-Stevens v Richmond Magistrates’ Court Admn 23-Oct-2003
The court considered an application to quash an order requiring the attendance of the claimant to give evidence: ‘Normally this court will not entertain an application for a quashing order in relation to a decision made in a magistrates’ court where . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.244438

Cambridge City Council v Alex Nestling Ltd: QBD 17 May 2006

The council appealed an award of costs against it. The respondent had appealed against a refusal by the council to vary a premises licence for a public house with partial success, and the magistrates had awarded the respondent half its costs.
Held: The appellant had not acted unlawfully, but had acted conscientously and properly. The magistrates had merely reached a different conclusion. The otherwise normal rule that costs follow the event did not apply in such cases.

Judges:

Richards LJ, Toulson J

Citations:

Times 11-Jul-2006

Statutes:

Licensing Act 2003 181

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedBradford City Metropolitan District Council v Booth QBD 10-May-2000
The local authority had refused to renew a private hire vehicle licence. That refusal was successfully challenged, and the magistrates had awarded costs on the basis that they should follow the event. The authority appealed.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Costs, Licensing

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.244195

Marco (Croydon) Ltd v Metropolitan Police Commissioner: QBD 1983

The defendant company traded as A and J Bull Containers. They hired out a builder’s skip which was left out, unlit, on the highway at night. A cyclist rode into it and died. An information was laid against ‘A J Bull Ltd’, charging an offence under the Highways Act 1980. The hearing took place after the expiry of the six-month limitation period permitted by Section 127 of the 1980 Act. Counsel appeared for A and J Bull Limited, a separate company entirely. The offending skip bore the name ‘A and J Bull’. A delivery and collection note in respect of it bore the inscription ‘Marco (Croydon) Limited T/A A and J Bull Containers’. The prosecution applied for the amendment of the name, which was allowed. The company appealed its conviction.
Held: The justices had been wrong to permit the amendment, and the appeal was allowed. The justices had correctly formulated the law in the case stated as follows: ‘We were of the opinion that, where the wrong person has been summoned, amendment should not be allowed but where the prosecutor has correctly identified the defendant but merely misstated the name, amendment should be allowed . .’ They applied that test in this way: ‘Applying those principles to the present case we were of the opinion that the prosecutor clearly intended to summon the corporation which supplied the skip whose name was wrongly copied from the delivery note. We therefore allowed the amendment.’ Glidewell J: ‘What the justices do not say and do not specifically find is that the correct company, Marco (Croydon) Limited, received the summons and were apprised that they were being blamed for breach of Section 139 ….. and it was that company, through [counsel], which appeared before the justices on 11 June’ – the date of the hearing – ‘[Counsel] says that he appeared instructed by another company called A and J Bull Limited which is a separate legal entity. ‘

Judges:

Glidewell J, Nolan J

Citations:

[1983] Crim LR 395

Statutes:

Magistrates’ Court Act 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v HM Courts Service (South West Region, Devon and Cornwall Area) and others Admn 14-Jun-2006
The defendants sought judicial review of decisions by magistrates to substitute out of time properly named companies as defendants in cases under the 1990 Act.
Held: The court had repeated the error made in the Marco case, by substituting as a . .
AppliedRegina v Greater Manchester Justices Ex Parte Aldi Gmbh and Co Kg; Aldi Gmbh v Mulvenna QBD 28-Dec-1994
The substitution of a defendant in a case before the magistrates was challengeable where it was not a mere mistake in the name of the defendant. The wholesalers who should have been named had been in correspondence for some time with the prosecutor . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.243317

S v Oxfordshire County Council: FD 1993

The failure by magistrates to give reasons for making an order is a serious deficiency and should occur only exceptionally: ‘It would be unjust to this child to allow a decision to stand which so affected his future without at least understanding the main bases upon which the decision was reached.’

Judges:

Connell J

Citations:

[1993] 1 FLR 452

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedIn re X, (Emergency Protection Orders) FD 16-Mar-2006
Within two hours of a case conference which mentioned possible removal of children, but agreed other steps, the local authority applied for an emergency protection order, and forcibly removed the child from the family.
Held: The decision . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Magistrates

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.241298

Berkshire County Council v C and others: QBD 1993

Care proceedings were commenced in respect of two children. The court directed the local authority to carry out an assessment which would require in effect the full time attention of a social worker, the child having been taken into care. The authority replied that it would undertake the assessment but that there would be a delay until a certain date because of a lack of resources. The court then made a further order which repeated the order for an assessment and specified that it should be provided by a certain date, a date which was before the date promised by the authority. The authority appealed.
Held: The court order stood. Provided only that the court had considered and taken proper account of the information on the authority’s resources, and it was not manifestly wrong, there was no scope to vary the order.

Citations:

[1993] 1 FLR 569, [1993] 2 WLR 475

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 38(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Local Government, Magistrates

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.228012

Regina v Baines: 1909

In a very rare case the court will be willing to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to prevent an abuse of the court process by an action designed with improper motives: ‘There can be no doubt as to the jurisdiction of the Court to interfere where it is satisfied that its process is being used for an indirect or improper use.’

Judges:

Bigham J

Citations:

[1909] 1 KB 258

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Leeds Magistrates Court ex parte Serif Systems Limited and Hamilton Admn 9-Oct-1997
The applicant sought that summonses be set aside as an abuse of process, being begun to embarrass him as he set out to become an MP. Thirty one private summonses had been issued.
Held: Of the summonses to be continued it could not be said that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.225277

Bodden v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: 1990

A magistrate’s power to order the detention of someone who wilfully interrupted the proceedings of the court includes ‘all incidental powers necessary to enable the court to exercise the jurisdiction in a judicial manner’, and specifically in this case the power to direct that the person be brought before him.

Citations:

[1990] 2 QB 397, [1990] 2 WLR 76, (1989) 154 JP 217, [1989] 3 All ER 833

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Magistrates

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.224766

Regina v The Evesham Justices ex parte McDonagh: 1988

There had been a proceeding before Magistrates Court for a minor traffic offence. The defendant was a member of Parliament. He sought not to have his address made public. Since his divorce from his wife he had been subjected to harassment. He had obtained a High Court injunction restraining her and she had previously, when she had known where he lived, damaged his motor vehicle and thrown things through the windows. He had moved to avoid that and sought now to keep his address confidential.
Held: The Court has a power to withhold the name and address of a defendant in cases where circumstances justify that:
‘It is not, therefore, right to say that everything which justices receive as evidence has publicly to be revealed. This because the proper administration of justice commands a measure of confidentiality in respect of certain evidence which should not be published.’
and: ‘I am bound to say that I am impressed with the argument that the action taken by the justices in the present case had nothing to do with the administration of justice. It seems to me that the concern shown by the justices for not giving publicity to Mr Hocking’s home address was solely motivated by their sympathy for his well-being if his former wife should learn of his home address and harass him yet again’

Judges:

Watkins LJ

Citations:

[1988] QB 553, [1988] 2 WLR 227

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Legal Aid Board ex parte Kaim Todner (a Firm of Solicitors) CA 10-Jun-1998
Limitation on Making of Anonymity Orders
A firm of solicitors sought an order for anonymity in their proceedings against the LAB, saying that being named would damage their interests irrespective of the outcome.
Held: The legal professions have no special part in the law as a party . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.200456

Regina v Reigate Justices, ex parte Counsell: 1984

Citations:

(1984) 148 JP 193

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

MentionedSkelton, 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.

Magistrates

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.606452

Regina v Birmingham Justices, ex parte Hodgson: 1985

McCullough J said that a defendant must ‘understand the nature and significance’ of his choice of venue for his trial. The central factor was the state of mind of the defendant at the time he made his election: ‘Did he properly understand the nature and significance of the choice which was put to him?’

Judges:

McCullough J

Citations:

[1985] QB 1131

Cited by:

CitedAryan v Department of Public Prosecutions Admn 13-Jan-2004
The defendant appealed against a refusal by the magistrates to allow him to re-open his mode of trial hearing so as to allow him to elect trial at the Crown Court. She was Iranian and non-English speaker, though with a translator. The magistrates . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.425325

Regina v Southampton Justices, ex parte Briggs: QBD 1972

Lord Widgery CJ, with whom Ashworth and Griffiths JJ agreed, stated that, in determining a request by a defendant to withdraw consent to summary jurisdiction, the justices should exercise their jurisdiction ‘on how they see the broad justice of the whole situation.’ and
‘So the true position when the matter eventually came back to the justices was that they did have power to allow the applicant to withdraw his consent to summary trial, and if he asks, as he did, to withdraw his consent, then the justices were required to exercise their discretion whether they would allow him to do so or not. The mischief in the present case is that they did not exercise a discretion at all because they believed that they had no discretion to exercise.
I am satisfied they were wrong in adopting the view that they had no discretion to exercise, and I would order mandamus to go directing them to hear the applicant’s request to withdraw his consent to summary trial, and to determine that request in their discretion. We have been pressed by Mr. Smyth to give some kind of indication or guidelines as to how such a discretion should be exercised. For my part, I think it would be dangerous, and I decline to give any such direction. I think it suffices to tell the justices that, as in all their undertakings, they must endeavour to do justice, and whether or not they exercise their discretion in favour of the applicant’s request will depend on how they see the broad justice of the whole situation.’
In this case however, they refused themselves to exercise the discretion on behalf of the justices who failed to exercise it.
Lord Widgery CJ said: ‘So the true position when the matter eventually came back to the justices was that they did have power to allow the applicant to withdraw his consent to summary trial, and if he asks, as he did, to withdraw his consent, then the justices were required to exercise their discretion whether they would allow him to do so or not. The mischief in the present case is that they did not exercise a discretion at all because they believed that they had no discretion to exercise.
I am satisfied they were wrong in adopting the view that they had no discretion to exercise, and I would order mandamus to go directing them to hear the applicant’s request to withdraw his consent to summary trial, and to determine that request in their discretion. We have been pressed by Mr. Smyth to give some kind of indication or guidelines as to how such a discretion should be exercised. For my part, I think it would be dangerous, and I decline to give any such direction. I think it suffices to tell the justices that, as in all their undertakings, they must endeavour to do justice, and whether or not they exercise their discretion in favour of the applicant’s request will depend on how they see the broad justice of the whole situation.’

Judges:

Lord Widgery CJ, Ashworth and Griffiths JJ

Citations:

[1972] 1 WLR 277

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedRegina v Craske, ex parte Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis QBD 1957
The court has discretion to permit a defendant a change of election for trial. Devlin J said: ‘I do not think that means that once the procedure is set in motion, the court has ineluctably to allow the wheels to revolve without any power to stop . .

Cited by:

CitedAryan v Department of Public Prosecutions Admn 13-Jan-2004
The defendant appealed against a refusal by the magistrates to allow him to re-open his mode of trial hearing so as to allow him to elect trial at the Crown Court. She was Iranian and non-English speaker, though with a translator. The magistrates . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.425326

Balchin v South Western Magistrates’ Court: Admn 2008

The successful defendant had been refused the costs of paying his counsel.
Held: The assessor was wrong in asking himself whether the employment of counsel was necessary; that was the wrong test. The only issue was whether it was reasonable.

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 3037 (Admin)

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 16

Cited by:

CitedThe Law Society of England and Wales, Regina (on The Application of) v The Lord Chancellor Admn 15-Jun-2010
Costs restriction not made under Act
The respondent had introduced rules which restricted the levels of costs which might be awarded from central funds to a successful defendant in a criminal trial who had take private representation. The amendment was made under powers in the 1985 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Costs

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.416818

Regina v Nottingham Justice, ex parte Brown: 1960

Proceedings which were begun incorrectly by the laying of an information rather than a complaint as required were a nullity.

Citations:

[1960] 1 WLR 1315

Cited by:

CitedNorth Wales Police v Anglesey Justices CA 16-Jul-2008
A dog bit a constable. The defendant said that the police had wrongly begun proceedings as an information, rather than by way of a complaint, and that they were a nullity.
Held: Rule 2.1 of the 1981 Rules is expressed in terms which show that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.272263

Coles v Camborne Justices: QBD 27 Jul 1998

Once the charges had been withdrawn by the prosecutor, the former defendant was no longer an accused, and the magistrates had no power to re-open the case to alter an order for costs they had made.

Citations:

Times 27-Jul-1998

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts Act 1980 142(1)

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Thames Magistrates’ Court ex parte Genegis Ramadan Admn 5-Oct-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.79272

Regina v Rochford Justices ex parte Buck: 1978

The court considered the correctness of the Divisional Court interfering in interlocutory orders in magistrates court proceedings: ‘The obligation of this Court to keep out of the way until the magistrate has finished his determination seems to me to be a principle properly to be applied both to summary trial and to committal proceedings.’

Judges:

Lord Widgery CJ

Citations:

[1978] 68 Cr App R 114

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHoar-Stevens v Richmond Magistrates’ Court Admn 23-Oct-2003
The court considered an application to quash an order requiring the attendance of the claimant to give evidence: ‘Normally this court will not entertain an application for a quashing order in relation to a decision made in a magistrates’ court where . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.226027

Hayes v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 2004

Absence of caution from form requesting information form driver.

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 277 (Admin)

Citing:

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

Road Traffic, Magistrates

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.224359

Rex v Jukes: 1800

A conviction by magistrates was said to be erroneous on its face, having failed to exclude a possible defence. The prosecutor objected to an application that it be quashed, saying ‘that the defendant having elected to appeal to the sessions, the certiorari was in effect taken away by the Act, because it said that the determination of the session should be final.’
Held: ‘That would be against all authority; for the certiorari being a beneficial writ for the subject, could not be taken away without express words . .’

Judges:

Lord Kenyon CJ

Citations:

(1800) 8 Term Rep 542, [1800] EngR 151, (1800) 8 TR 536, (1800) 101 ER 1533

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Medical Appeal Tribunal ex parte Gilmore; Re Gilmore’s Application CA 25-Feb-1957
The claimant had received two injuries resulting in his total blindness. He sought an order of certiorari against the respondent who had found only a 20% disability. The tribunal responded that its decision, under the Act was final.
Held: In . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.222193

Regina v The Dover Justices ex parte Dover District Council: QBD 1991

Magistrates could not restrict and prevent reporting of elements of a court case where publicity might result in financial damage or damage to reputation or goodwill of a defendant. Such circumstances were not special ones to allow this.

Judges:

Neill LJ

Citations:

[1991] 156 JP 433, Times 21-Oct-1991

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Legal Aid Board ex parte Kaim Todner (a Firm of Solicitors) CA 10-Jun-1998
Limitation on Making of Anonymity Orders
A firm of solicitors sought an order for anonymity in their proceedings against the LAB, saying that being named would damage their interests irrespective of the outcome.
Held: The legal professions have no special part in the law as a party . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.200457

Regina v Craske, ex parte Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis: QBD 1957

The court has discretion to permit a defendant a change of election for trial. Devlin J said: ‘I do not think that means that once the procedure is set in motion, the court has ineluctably to allow the wheels to revolve without any power to stop them if the accused wants to change his mind. I think it means no more than this, that if the summary trial is to be proceeded with in the way in which section 19 provides, those are the steps that must be taken, but I can find nothing in the words of subsection (5) which would deprive a magistrate or any court of the ordinary right which they must have in the interests of justice of allowing an accused who has given his consent ill- advisedly to abandoning his right to a trial by jury, to be given the opportunity of reconsidering it.’

Judges:

Devlin J

Citations:

[1957] 2 QB 591

Statutes:

Magistartes Court Act 1952 19(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAryan v Department of Public Prosecutions Admn 13-Jan-2004
The defendant appealed against a refusal by the magistrates to allow him to re-open his mode of trial hearing so as to allow him to elect trial at the Crown Court. She was Iranian and non-English speaker, though with a translator. The magistrates . .
AppliedRegina v Southampton Justices, ex parte Briggs QBD 1972
Lord Widgery CJ, with whom Ashworth and Griffiths JJ agreed, stated that, in determining a request by a defendant to withdraw consent to summary jurisdiction, the justices should exercise their jurisdiction ‘on how they see the broad justice of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.190498

Michael 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.

Citations:

[1977] 1 WLR 296

Cited by:

CitedMorgan, 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 . .
CitedChief Constable of Cleveland Police v Vaughan Admn 12-Oct-2009
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.188399

Regina (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.

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 446

Statutes:

Police (Property) Act 1897 1(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Police, Magistrates

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.188400

Raymond 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 police did not return the ring to the jewellers, who applied to the Magistrates Court under the 1897 Act. The magistrates declined to order the police to return the ring, on the ground that the jewellers were not the owners of it.
Held: The appeal failed. The procedure under the 1897 Act is suitable only for ‘straightforward, simple cases where there is no difficulty of law and the matter is clear’. He added: ‘I would discourage them from attempting to use the procedure of the Act of 1897 in cases which involve a real issue of law or any real difficulty in determining whether a particular person is or is not the owner’. Where there was a real issue of law or any real difficulty in determining whether a particular person was or was not the owner, a claim should be brought in the civil courts.

Judges:

Lord Widgery CJ

Citations:

[1975] 1 All ER 335, [1975] QB 321

Statutes:

Police (Property) Act 1897 1

Cited by:

CitedMorgan, 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 . .
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 . .
CitedO’Leary International Ltd v North Wales Police Admn 31-May-2012
The company employed drivers to cross the UK. They were stopped and did not have the requisite drivers records. Instead they produced certificates as to having had rest days. These proved false, and the drivers said that the had been produced for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Magistrates

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.188402

Regina v Harrow Justices ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions: 1991

In order to use the power to issue a warrant of commitment, committing the defaulter to custody, the court must conduct a fair and public hearing to decide what is the appropriate order to make in all the circumstances. The power to issue the warrant is discretionary. Such a warrant is a mode of enforcement of last resort.

Citations:

[1991] 1 WLR 395

Statutes:

Magistrates Court Act 1980 76

Cited by:

CitedLloyd v Bow Street Magistrates Court Admn 8-Oct-2003
The defendant had been convicted and made subect to a confiscation order in 1996. A final order for enforcement was made in late 2002. The defendant said the delay in the enforcement proceedings was a breach of his right to a trial within a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.187183

Regina v Skegness Magistrates’ Court ex parte Cardy: 1985

Representations that the Intoximeter or other device used for measuring breath alcohol, should not have been approved or that the Secretary of State should have withdrawn approval in respect of the device should be addressed to the Secretary of State and not to the court. While an approval subsisted it is ‘wholly immaterial to mount a challenge to the general reliability of these approved devices in individual prosecutions brought under the Act’. There is no provision for discovery of documents for a summary trial in a magistrates’ court and section 97(1) should not be used as a disguised attempt to obtain discovery. The summons issued to compel the manufacturer to produce documents relating to the functioning and design of the breath-testing instrument was quashed as a ‘fishing expedition’ and because the documents were not admissible per se because they would need an expert witness to interpret them.

Judges:

Robert Goff LJ

Citations:

[1985] RTR 49

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts Act 1980 97(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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 . .
ApprovedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Andrew Earle Anthony Brown, Jose Teixeira QBD 16-Nov-2001
Where a defendant to a charge of driving with excess alcohol, sought to test the accuracy of the Intoximeter, the Magistrates should consider whether the evidence was as to the particular Intoximeter used, and was of sufficient quality to displace . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v McKeown and Jones HL 20-Feb-1997
A driver was arrested for driving with excess alcohol. At the police station, he was to be tested with the Lion Intoximeter. The officer tested the machine and it calibrated correctly. This was at about a quarter after midnight; the sergeant’s watch . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Wood; Director of Public Prosecutions v McGillicuddy Admn 19-Jan-2006
Each defendant sought disclosure of materials concerning the intoximeter instruments, having been charged with driving with excess alcohol. The defendants said that the meters were inaccurate and that the manufacturers were in effect part of the . .
CitedCunliffe, Regina (on the Application of) v West London Magistrates’ Court Admn 6-Jul-2006
The claimant was an employee of the company manufacturing alcohol measuring devices. He sought judicial review of decisions by magistrates to require him to attend court to give evidence which would require him to breach obligations of confidence he . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Evidence, Magistrates

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.187056

Regina v Berwyn Justices, Ex parte Edwards: 1980

Citations:

[1980] 1 WLR 1045

Cited by:

CitedGough v Bristol Licensing Justices QBD 12-Apr-2002
The applicant sought a special order of exemption to allow him to open his public house for customers to watch the world cup football matches. Previous case law suggested that such events were not ‘special events’ within the Act so as to allow such . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Magistrates

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.183141

Wildman v Director of Public Prosecutions: CA 23 Jan 2001

Where the prosecutor intended to apply to extend the custody the time limit, he should not be required to produce full documentation in the same way as for the trial itself. Nevertheless, he should produce enough information, according to the circumstances, to allow the defendant properly to prepare his own submissions for the application. The Human Rights Act must to be taken into account. Article 6 has no direct relevance, but article 5 does. The approach may differ from case to case. The application for an extension could be more informal than the normal trial process. It was therefore unnecessary to comply with formal rules of evidence. The burden lay upon the Crown who had to satisfy the magistrates that the application was proper and to put the defendant into a position to allow him to test the appropriateness of the application.
The Lord Chief Justice said that ECHR jurisprudence could not and should not be applied directly to the procedures in the English jurisdiction: ‘whether access to documents is to be granted, and when it is to be granted, must depend upon the particular domestic procedure which is being brought into play in proceedings before the courts in this jurisdiction’.
As to the custody time limits, Lord Woolf said: ‘it is to be hoped that in the majority of cases it is will be possible for the Crown Prosecution Service to make information available to a defendant, prior to the application being made, which will enable him or her to be satisfied as to the propriety of the application. Insofar as it is necessary for a defendant to test any aspect of the application, then the means must be provided to enable him or her to do that. However, formal disclosure of the sort which is appropriate prior to the trial will not normally be necessary in regard to an application either for bail or for an extension of time limits.’

Judges:

Lord Woolf LCJ

Citations:

Times 08-Feb-2001

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Ara Admn 21-Jun-2001
The Director challenged the decision of the magistrates to stay a prosecution of the defendant as an abuse of process. The defendant had been interviewed without a solicitor. He went away to seek legal advice. The solicitor requested a copy of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights, Magistrates

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.90499

Mercer v Oldham: QBD 1984

The respondent had recovered his car from the police via a complaint to the magistrates, having lent it to his brother-in-law, who had used it in a burglary. The magistrates found that he had not known of the intended use. The police had taken no steps to ascertain his state of knowledge, and the magistrates ordered the police to pay his costs. The police appealed by case stated against the order for costs.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The conduct of the police justified the order. In the course of judgment the Court said: ‘In matters of this kind, it was of the utmost assistance to the justices that the police should be present at court, both to indicate whether or not they objected to the order being made, and to test the evidence of a claimant. In such circumstances, the justices would normally make no order for costs. But they did have a discretion, and if they considered that the police had gone beyond the usual rule merely assisting the justices, and actively opposed the order, then there was no reason why the justices should not, in the exercise of their discretion, order the police to pay costs. That was clearly what happened in the present case.’

Citations:

[1984] Crim LR 232

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates, Police, Costs

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.401966

G v F (Non-Molestation Order: Jurisdiction): CA 22 Jun 2000

The issue of whether a respondent to a non-molestation order application was an associated person, was to be construed purposively. The system was designed to afford a swift and accessible procedure. There had been present three of the admirable Crake signposts of co-habitation, a sexual relationship, financial support, and a respondent’s admissions against interest. If they had taken the co-habitation point first, the association would have become an open question.

Citations:

Times 24-May-2000, Gazette 22-Jun-2000

Statutes:

Family Law Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ApprovedCrake v Supplementary Benefits Commission; Butterworth v Supplementary Benefits Commission 1982
The claimants lived in the same house. The woman had severe injuries, and her male friend had at one time moved into the house to assist her care. She later moved to live with him, leaving her husband. There was no sexual relationship. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Magistrates

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.80722

Evans v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 2001

The defendant appealed saying that the magistrates in convicting him had given the impression that they had applied a lower standard of proof than was required.
Held: Even though there was no basis to find that the magistrates had in fact applied a lower standard the words used gave the impression that they might have done. The defendant had been left with a feeling that he had not been given a fair trial, and the conviction wa set aside.

Judges:

Bell J, Lord Woolf LCJ

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 369

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Magistrates, Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.267515

Goodlad v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire: 1979

Magistrates may not attach particular conditions to a requirement that a defendant be bound over to be of good behaviour.

Citations:

[1979] CLR 51

Cited by:

CitedHashman and Harrup v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Nov-1999
The defendants had been required to enter into a recognisance to be of good behaviour after disrupting a hunt by blowing of a hunting horn. They were found to have unlawfully caused danger to the dogs. Though there had been no breach of the peace, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.261942

Regina v Hove Justices ex-parte Donne: 1967

Citations:

[1967] 2 All ER 1253

Cited by:

CitedCunliffe, Regina (on the Application of) v West London Magistrates’ Court Admn 6-Jul-2006
The claimant was an employee of the company manufacturing alcohol measuring devices. He sought judicial review of decisions by magistrates to require him to attend court to give evidence which would require him to breach obligations of confidence he . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.244439

Regina v East Kerrier Justices ex parte Mundy: 1952

Judges:

Devlyn J

Citations:

[1952] 2 QB 26

Citing:

ConsideredDavies v Griffiths 1936
The proper procedure for justices is that Magistrates should announce the decision to convict before inquiring of the previous convictions and, that being so, the defendant or his counsel should have the further opportunity of addressing the Court. . .

Cited 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: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.241312

Regina 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 jurisdiction and had not barred themselves from acting in their other and quite distinct capacity of examining magistrates. Thus the committal of the defendant to stand trial at quarter sessions was a valid committal.

Citations:

[1964] QB 15

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedRex 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 . .
AppliedBannister 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. . .

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, Criminal Practice

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.220280

Regina v Totnes Licensing Justices, ex parte Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall: QBD 28 May 1990

The court considered the award of costs in a licensing case. Roch J said: ‘There can be no doubt that in civil proceedings between litigants, be it in the High Court or county court, the principle is that costs follow the event. The winning party obtains an order for costs against the losing party unless there are exceptional circumstances or reasons why this should not be so.
Mr Barrie has pointed out that the basis of that principle is this: the losing litigant should not have contested the matter before the court. In my judgment it was wrong for the justices to treat this matter as civil proceedings between two private litigants and to ignore the factor urged upon them by the solicitor appearing for the police authority, namely, that the police have a function which they are required to perform. They are required to supervise the proper conduct of the licensed premises and to object in those cases where there are good grounds for objecting to the renewal of the licence. That that is the police’s function is clearly demonstrated by the provisions in the Licensing Act which give the police power to enter licensed premises whether at the invitation of the licensee or not.
In addition, in my view, the police authority must also bring to the attention of the licensing justices matters of which the police know and which can fairly and properly be said to amount to misconduct by the licensee or those for whom he is responsible.
Such factors emphasise the importance of the police being able to discharge their functions with regard to the licensing laws fairly and properly. Of course, if the evidence indicated that an objection by a police authority to the renewal of the justices’ on-licence was misconceived, that it was without [proper] foundation or born of malice or some improper motive, then it would be just and reasonable for the police to be ordered to pay the costs of the successful licensee . . One of the roles the police must fulfil is to enable justices, who have to consider the renewal of licenses, to make informed decisions.’

Judges:

Roch J

Citations:

Times 28-May-1990, (1990) 156 JP 587

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Merthyr Tydfil Crown Court, ex parte Chief Constable Dyfed Powys Police QBD 9-Nov-1998
The Chief Constable, on good grounds, objected to the transfer of a justices’ on-licence to a Mrs W. Mrs W appealed and the Chief Constable, having objected to the transfer, became a respondent. On the appeal Mrs W contended that, since the conduct . .
CitedBradford City Metropolitan District Council v Booth QBD 10-May-2000
The local authority had refused to renew a private hire vehicle licence. That refusal was successfully challenged, and the magistrates had awarded costs on the basis that they should follow the event. The authority appealed.
Held: The . .
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, . .
CitedRegina v Methyr Tydfil Crown Court ex parte Chief Constable Dyfed Powys Police Admn 9-Nov-1998
Where the police had exercised their statutory duty in opposing a transfer of justices licence without being unreasonable or acting in bad faith, they should not be ordered to pay the applicant’s costs after a successful appeal to the Crown . .
CitedChief Constable of West Midlands Police, Regina (On the Application of) v Coventry Crown Court Admn 6-Jun-2000
The Chief Constable sought judicial review of the award against him of costs after a successful appeal against the revocation of a justices’ on-licence for premises in Coventry. The initial revocation had followed the cautioning of members of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Magistrates, Licensing

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.196680

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council v Booth: Admn 10 May 2000

Lord Bingham set out guidance in respect of costs awarded by magistrates pursuant to section 64(1) of the 1980 Act, saying: ‘I would accordingly hold that the proper approach to questions of this kind can for convenience be summarised in three propositions: 1. Section 64(1) confers a discretion upon a magistrates’ court to make such order as to costs as it thinks just and reasonable. That provision applies both to the quantum of the costs (if any) to be paid, but also as to the party (if any) which should pay them. 2. What the court will think just and reasonable will depend on all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case before the court. The court may think it just and reasonable that costs should follow the event, but need not think so in all cases covered by the subsection. 3. Where a complainant has successfully challenged before justices an administrative decision made by a police or regulatory authority acting honestly, reasonably, properly and on grounds that reasonably appeared to be sound, in exercise of its public duty, the court should consider, in addition to any other relevant fact or circumstances, both (i) the financial prejudice to the particular complainant in the particular circumstances if an order for costs is not made in his favour, and (ii) the need to encourage public authorities to make and stand by honest, reasonable and apparently sound administrative decisions made in the public interest without fear of exposure to undue financial prejudice if the decision is successfully challenged.’

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill LCJ, Silber J

Citations:

[2000] EWHC Admin 444, (2000) 164 JP 485, [2001] LLR 151, (2001) 3 LGLR 8, [2000] COD 338

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts Act 1980 64(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedLeeds City Council v Leeds District Magistrates and Another Admn 11-Apr-2013
The court had allowed an appeal against a decision of the appellant’s licensing sub-committee refusing a Premises Licence. The Council now appealed against the award of costs, sayin that no reasons had been given.
Held: There were no findings . .
AppliedWaveney District Council v Lowestoft (North East Suffolk) Magistrates’ Court and Another Admn 25-Nov-2008
The council appealed by case stated against rejection of its claim of an asserted noise nuisance at the defendant’s paint factory. The magistrates had found that the notice had been served on the wrong (though related) company, and refused . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Costs

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.263517

Regina v Parlby: 1889

Sewage works could not be treated as ‘premises’ under the section. ‘The very magnitude of the authority conferred upon justices by the sections under consideration affords a powerful argument that they are intended for ordinary and comparatively simple cases . .’

Citations:

(1889) 22 QBD 520

Statutes:

Public Health Act 1875 91

Cited by:

Not bindingHounslow London Borough Council v Thames Water Utilities Ltd Admn 23-May-2003
An abatement notice was served on the respondent in respect of the stink emanating from their sewage works. The magistrates decided that the workls did not constitute premises within the section, following Parlby.
Held: Parlby was not binding, . .
CitedVella v London Borough of Lambeth Admn 14-Nov-2005
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision to serve an abatement notice in respect of premises where the normal noise incidents of living were heard in neighbouring flats, which notices were to be abated by noise insulation.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities, Nuisance, Magistrates

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.183839

Regina v Macclesfield Justices, ex parte Jones: 1983

A defendant who is guilty of deliberately seeking to postpone a trial without good reason has no cause for complaint if his application for an adjournment is refused.

Citations:

(1983) RTR 143

Cited by:

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

Magistrates

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.179884