Category: Magistrates

Hackney London Borough Council v Rottenberg: QBD 24 Jan 2007

The authority appealed the dismissal of a charge against the defendant rabbi on six counts of nuisance for noise of shouting clapping and stamping emanating from the synagogue to the annoyance of a neighbour.
Held: The court was not obliged to accept the evidence of a witness, and did not have to accept that of the unchallenged expert evidence of environmental and pollution control officers.

Judges:

Lord Justice Scott Baker and Mr Justice David Clarke

Citations:

Times 09-Feb-2007

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 80(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Local Government, Nuisance, Magistrates

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.248918

Regina v Liverpool City Magistrates Court ex parte Quantrell: Admn 19 Jan 1999

The defendant appealed against the refusal of the Justices to deal with his formal committal to the Crown court in his absence when he was unwell. The magistrates had distinguished between sections 6(1) and 6(2) as to whether the accused was required to be present.
Held: The distinction was false: ‘when the Act deals in section 4 with the tendering of the evidence before the Justices it is doing more than simply using that expression to refer to a discrete and separate part of the committal proceedings. The overall structure of the Act is using that expression, in my judgement, to refer to committal proceedings as a whole. Even if that is not right it would be wholly artificial to think that Parliament would have consciously made any provision in section 6(2) preventing action in the absence of the accused by simply by omitting any such provision in section 6(2). Particularly in a section 6(2) case the tendering of the evidence, and the consideration of whether the accused should be committed, is part and parcel of a single operation.’

Judges:

Buxton LJ, Collins J

Citations:

Times 02-Feb-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 41, [1999] Crim LR 734, (1999) 163 JP 420, [1999] 2 Cr App R 24

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts Act 1980 4(4) 6(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139305

O’Sullivan v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 4 Nov 1998

The court considered and gave directions for the form of statement of case submitted by the magistrates.

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Admin 1041

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

See Also – O’Sullivan v Director of Public Prosecutions 27-Mar-2000
Where a motorist challenges the accuracy of the intoximeter, there is only an evidential burden on him. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.139162

Regina v Thames Magistrates’ Court ex parte Genegis Ramadan: Admn 5 Oct 1998

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Admin 922

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

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

Magistrates

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.139043

Drozdowski v Department of Public Prosecutions: Admn 8 Oct 1998

A parking ticket had wrongly identified the town in which the ticket was issued, and the ticket described the offence as ‘No Waiting’ where the defendant said he should have been accused of waiting. The magistrates allowed it to be amended. The defendant appealed his conviction after appeal to the Crown Court, which had found no prejudice.
Held: the defects were not fundamental and the defendant had understood what was alleged, and the appeal failed.

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Admin 933

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – HM Attorney General v Drozdowski Admn 6-Apr-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Magistrates

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.139054

Chief 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, and he appealed against that order.
Held: The appeal was allowed. May LJ said: ‘It should be said that the learned judge had found that the Chief Constable had acted entirely in good faith, and no criticism was levelled against him in the way in which this had been handled.’
Having considered a number of decided cases, he continued: ‘It is of course important to say that decisions as to costs are discretionary and that any court or tribunal exercising such discretion is obliged to take into account all relevant circumstances. One such relevant circumstance was that this was indeed a police authority performing a statutory licensing function. This will not be determinative of all cases, but it is important that the tribunal takes into account that, generally speaking, a cost order adverse to such an authority would not be made unless there was some good reason for doing so, which was more than the fact that the other party to the contest had succeeded.’ He concluded: ‘In my view, this is a borderline case so far as costs are concerned. I can certainly see some force in [counsel’s] submissions, but exercising afresh, as in my view we are entitled to do, the discretion which Judge Morrison exercised, I consider on balance that this is not a case where costs ought to have been ordered against the Chief Constable. He acted, as the judge held, in complete good faith and, in those circumstances, the costs order ought not to have been made against him.’

Judges:

May LJ

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Admin 390

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Magistrates, Costs, Police

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138511

Regina v Corby Justices ex parte Agnes Mort: Admn 9 Mar 1998

Justices clerks are permitted to question fine defaulters as to their ability to pay, but must do so under enquiry without bias, and not as a prosecutor. A warrant for arrest for non-pyment of a fine was neither civil nor criminal in character, but in a category of its own.

Citations:

Times 13-Mar-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 280

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts Act 1980 82(4)(b)(I)

Cited by:

Cited – Hutt v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis CA 3-Dec-2003
The claimant had first been arrested (unlawfully) for non-payment of fines. He was chronically ill. He had later been re-arrested, again unlawfully for an alleged offence of common assault against one of the original arresting civilian officers, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138401

Regina v Scunthorpe Justices ex parte McPhee and Gallagher: Admn 24 Feb 1998

The defendant faced a charge of robbery. More than six months after the alleged offence the prosecution sought to add alternate charges including one of common assault. The magistrates declined jurisdiction on the ground that, more than six months having elapsed since the date of the offence, new proceedings for the summary offence of common assault were time barred and the differences between the offences were too great for the original charge to be amended.
Held: The magistrates’ refusal was quashed. ‘In my judgment, the following principles can be derived from the authorities: (1) The purpose of the six-month time-limit imposed by s.127 of the 1980 Act is to ensure that summary offences are charged and tried as soon as reasonably practicable after their alleged commission. (2) Where an information has been laid within the six-month period it can be amended after the expiry of that period. (3) An information can be amended after the expiry of the six-month period, even to allege a different offence or different offences provided that — (i) the different offence or offences allege the ‘same misdoing’ as the original offence; and (ii) the amendment can be made in the interests of justice.
These two conditions require a little elucidation. The phrase ‘same misdoing’ appears in the judgment of McCullough J in Simpson v Roberts. In my view it should not be construed too narrowly. I understand it to mean that the new offence should arise out of the same (or substantially the same) facts as gave rise to the original offence … Once they are satisfied that the amended offence or offences arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the original offence, the justices must go on to consider whether it is in the interests of justice to allow the amendment. In exercising their discretion the justices should pay particular regard to the interests of the defendant. If an amendment will result in a defendant facing a significantly more serious charge, that should weigh heavily — perhaps conclusively — against allowing the amendment after the six-month time-limit has expired. There may also be cases where a late application to amend by the prosecution would give rise to an application for an adjournment. If the justices were to conclude that an amendment to the information would necessitate an adjournment, that might well be a good reason for refusing an application to amend in view of the basic purpose of the six-month time limit imposed by s.127 of the 1980 Act. The need for an adjournment on that ground ought, however, to be rare since the amended offence will arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the original offence.’ An information could be amended out of the six months time limit if arising from substantially same facts and allegations as original charge.

Judges:

Lord Bingham CJ and Dyson J

Citations:

Times 10-Mar-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 228, [1998] 162 JP 635

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts Act 1980 127

Cited by:

Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions, Regina (on the Application of) v Everest Admn 24-May-2005
The defendant had lit a bonfire. The smoke left his garden and blew across the road. An accident occurred. The prosecution appealed dismissal of a charge against him on the ground that they sought an amended charge after closure of their case and it . .
Cited – Ashton , Regina v; Regina v Draz; Regina v O’Reilly CACD 5-Apr-2006
The court considered three appeals where there had been a procedural irregularity, and where the judge had taken some step to overcome that irregularity. In two cases the Crown Court judge had reconstituted himself as a district judge to correct a . .
Cited – Department for Work and Pensions v Courts Admn 3-May-2006
The appellant challenged stays of proceedings by the respondent magistrates court for abuse of process infringing the defendants’ human right to a fair trial. The magistrates had fund that being faced with dismissal of a summary case through delay, . .
Cited – Williams v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 24-Jul-2009
Thomas LJ said: ‘When the magistrates were faced with the application for an amendment, the law was clear and remains clear. The principles are set out in Section 123 and 127 of the Magistrates’ Court Act [1980] and in the single decision of this . .
Cited – Crann v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 27-Feb-2013
The defendant appealed by case stated against an order allowing the amendment of an information against him. He was first accused of failing to provide a specimen of breath for testing after being stopped and suspected of driving with excess . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138349

Regina v Norfolk Stipendary Magistrates ex parte Keable: Admn 29 Jan 1998

A police investigation into an offence not yet committed, did not count as an investigation into that offence for the purposes of setting the start date under the Act.

Citations:

Times 05-Feb-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 108, [1998] CLR 510

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 1(3)

Cited by:

Cited – Brizzalari v Regina CACD 19-Feb-2004
Limits to Requests for Adverse Inferences
In closing, prosecuting counsel had suggested that during the trial two matters had been mentioned by the defence which had not been mentioned earlier, and that the jury should feel free to draw proper inferences under the 1984 Act from that . .
Cited – Regina v Uxbridge Magistrates Court, Ex Parte Patel; Regina v City of London Magistrates Court, Ex Parte Cropper QBD 7-Dec-1999
There is no rule to say that the investigation of an offence cannot begin until after it has been committed. For the Act, the meaning of ‘criminal investigation’ has the same meaning in Part I as in Part II, and accordingly, where an investigation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138229

Crown Prosecution Service v Charles Henderson Speede : Queen v Liverpool Justices ex parte Hugh Collins : Queen v Liverpool Justices ex parte Paul Santos: Admn 17 Dec 1997

The case concerned procedural issues concerning the jurisdiction of a magistrates’ court to make an order binding over a person to keep the peace or be of good behaviour.

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 1149

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.138094

Regina v Barnet Justices ex parte R: QBD 10 Nov 1994

The court accepted, on the basis of Bennett, that the magistrates did not have jurisdiction to consider allegations of abuse based on ‘bad faith’.

Citations:

Unreported, 10 November 1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court ex parte Fiona Watts Admn 8-Feb-1999
The defendant sought to have dismissed as an abuse of proces charges against her that as an officer of Customs and Excise prosecuting the now private prosecutor, she had committed various offences.
Held: The magistrate was vested with . .
Cited – Regina v Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court ex parte Fiona Watts Admn 8-Feb-1999
The defendant sought to have dismissed as an abuse of proces charges against her that as an officer of Customs and Excise prosecuting the now private prosecutor, she had committed various offences.
Held: The magistrate was vested with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.244673

West Yorkshire Probation Board v Townend: Admn 28 Jul 2005

The Board appealed dismissal by the magistrates of their complaint that the defendant had failed to comply with an order requiring him to report to a relevant officer after his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. The defendant argued that no proper evidence had been brought that he had been informed of the relevant appointment.
Held: The letter was not a document which was required to be served under the Magistrates Courts rules. Proof of service was required under s24 of the 1988 Act. Under that section the evidence of posting which had been provided was admissible. The case was remitted.

Judges:

Mr Justice Simon Lady Justice Smith DBE

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1953 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, Criminal Justice Act 1988 24(1), Magistrates’ Court Rules 67(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.230112

Regina (Hale) v Southport Justices: QBD 14 Jan 2002

The applicant had been awarded the costs of his defence by the magistrates, but the bill was halved on assessment, on the basis that an agreement to engage a solicitor of more than four years admission to defend a charge of assault and battery, and to pay him on an hourly rate was unreasonable. He appealed.
Held: The clerk had misread the test in the section. It was not whether a less experienced solicitor would have been reasonably sufficient. The test was directed not to the choice of solicitor, but to the remuneration claimed. It was reasonable to agree to pay a solicitor on a flat hourly rate when charging practices at that time were in a transition period, and fees for advice prior to the actual charge were also within the section.

Judges:

Lord Justice Auld and Mr Justice Gage

Citations:

Times 29-Jan-2002

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 16(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.167486

Polychronakis Chief Legal and Property Officer for and on Behalf of Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council v Richards and Jerroms Limited: Admn 2 Jul 1997

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 617

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Polychronakis v Richards and Jerrom Limited Admn 16-Oct-1997
It is the responsibility of the prosecution to disprove the existence of reasonable excuse for non-compliance once a defence raised. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Polychronakis v Richards and Jerrom Limited Admn 16-Oct-1997
It is the responsibility of the prosecution to disprove the existence of reasonable excuse for non-compliance once a defence raised. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137562

Regina v Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrates ex parte Levy: Admn 16 Jun 1997

The court was asked whether a defendant can be convicted of driving while disqualified notwithstanding that, subsequent to the act of driving in question, he has successfully appealed against the conviction for which he had earlier been disqualified? The magistrates refused to state a case, saying that the request was frivolous.
Held:
As to the refusal to state a case, if there is a real point to be argued, then a case should have been stated. Simon Brown LJ said: ‘On 13th November 1996 the Magistrate refused to state a case, explaining fully and helpfully the reasons why he regarded the applicant’s argument as unsustainable and why in the result he concluded that the application was frivolous within the meaning of section 111(5) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980.
Invited by the applicant’s solicitors on 4th December 1996 to reconsider his decision, the Magistrate on 11th December refused, pointing out that, in any event, ‘the case has in effect been stated in the body of that letter’ (i.e. his earlier letter of 13th November). The same day, 11th December 1996, the applicant brought judicial review proceedings seeking an order for mandamus to require the respondent Magistrate to state a case. Leave to move was granted . . on 26th January 1997, and it was in that form that the matter first came before us today. As, however, I have had occasion to remark in a number of other cases, such a course, although conventional and technically correct, is in fact, in circumstances such as arise here, absurdly inconvenient. If it succeeds, all it produces is an order for a case to be stated which in reality advances the resolution of the substantive issue not one jot. Far better surely, in a case like this where the facts are not in dispute and where in any event the Magistrate has, as he observed, already in effect stated the case, that the true issue should be placed directly before this court (as so easily it can be) by way of a straightforward judicial review challenge to the legality of the conviction . . With these considerations in mind, we gave leave at the outset of the hearing to amend the proceedings to include a separate judicial review challenge going directly to the conviction on 23rd October 1996 so as to raise squarely for present decision – rather than merely for the expression of a prima facie view upon – the critical issue arising. I should just note that we took this course with the agreement not merely of the applicant, but also of the Crown Prosecution Service who fortunately were represented before us.’

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ, Garland J

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 559

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Magistrates’ Court Act 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Sunworld Limited v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council QBD 2000
The company faced a prosecution under the 1968 Act, in respect of a brochure. On conviction, the company asked the Crown Court to state a case for the Divisional Court. The Recorder refused as to two points, saying that they were decisions of fact . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates, Judicial Review

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137504

Regina 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 wage disallowed an attachment order. The committal was quashed and the case remitted for rehearing.

Citations:

Times 27-Jun-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 461, (1997) 161 JPN 794, [1998] BPIR 642, 161 JP 550

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Attachment of Earnings Act 1971 1(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Oldham Justices ex parte Crawley (orse Cawley) 1996
The court set out the duties of magistrates when making a warrant for committal. Simon Brown LJ said that where there has been a criminal conviction the courts have firmly excluded collateral attack by habeas corpus, holding that the only proper . .
Cited – Regina v Newark Justices ex parte Keenaghan and R v Stockport Justices ex parte Conlon Admn 18-Dec-1996
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137406

Barnes v Chief Constable of Durham: Admn 24 Apr 1997

The defendant was prosecuted for a driving offence. No identification parade had been held, and he was identified in the dock at court.
Held: Despite the firmly-rooted hostility to dock identifications in the Crown Court, they are permitted in driving cases in the magistrates’ court.
Popplewell J said: ‘There is no logic in making a distinction in regard to dock identifications between the Crown Court and the magistrates’ court. However it has to be recognised that every day in a magistrates’ court those charged for instance with careless driving, who have made no statement to the police, are entitled to sit back and in the absence of identification to submit that it has not been proven that they were the driver. Such an example is to be found in Jones v Carter [1956] Crim.L.R 275 where an acquittal was directed in a careless driving case where the prosecutor had not proved that the defendant was driving although there had been no cross-examination by the defence as to identity and the case had been conducted on the basis that the defendant who did not testify was driving.
To deal with that it has been customary ever since I can remember for a police officer or other witnesses to be asked, ‘Do you see the driver in court,’ and for him to identify the defendant. Absent such an identification an acquittal may well follow. If in every case where the defendant does not distinctly admit driving there has to be an identification parade, the whole process of justice in a magistrates’ court would be severely impaired. There are of course other ways in which a driver of a car can be identified but what I have just described is the norm. And in Middleton v Rowlett [1954] W.L.R.331 the magistrates refused to allow the prosecution to re-open their case where they had failed to give evidence as to identity and the Divisional Court refused to interfere with this exercise and the magistrates’ discretion. For my part I make no observation on the correctness of the passage that appears in Archbold but in this case I have to look at the facts as they appeared to the magistrates and decide whether on the facts of this case it was plainly unfair to allow a dock identification. I do not so find.’

Judges:

McCowan LJ, Popplewell J

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 408, [1997] 2 Cr App R 505, (1998) 162 JP 126

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Holland v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Devolution) PC 11-May-2005
The defendant appealed his convictions for robbery. He had been subject to a dock identification, and he complained that the prosecution had failed in its duties of disclosure.
Held: The combination of several failings meant that the defendant . .
Cited – Karia, Regina (on The Application of) v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 10-Oct-2002
The defendant appealed by case stated against a decision of the Crown Court on appeal rejecting his assertion that he had not been proved to have been driving a car on the occasion when the offences occurred. The court had allowed a dock . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137353

Regina v Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex Parte Mahmed Ali: Admn 28 Apr 1997

The applicant sought an order declaring the property he occupied to be a nuisance, and that his landlords must execute repairs. The authority replied that the applicant had not allowed them access in order to carry out the works (Kerr). The stipendiary magistrate dismissed the application without giving reasons. The applicant argued that Kerr applied only to one subsection, and not the one at issue. Absent reasons for the decision, the applicant was deprived of the ability to pursue his case. The applicant sought his costs. The power to order costs against a magistrate was considered. Where costs had been incurred through the failure of the magistrate to do those things properly required of him or her then costs might well be awarded.

Citations:

HC Admin 417

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 79(1)(a)

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Kerr and the Hackney Borough Council 1996
. .
Cited – Regina v Newcastle Under Lyme Magistrates Court Ex Parte Massey and Others QBD 7-Oct-1994
Guidance was given on orders for payment of costs by justices who found themselves respondents to judicial review proceedings. Justices who refused consent to quash a committal and failing to appear may be subject to such orders. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Costs, Magistrates

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137362

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:

Cited – Director 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 . .
Cited – Director 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:

Cited – Regina 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:

Cited – Regina 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:

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

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 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:

Cited – 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.
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:

Cited – Johnson, 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:

Cited – Regina 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. . .
Cited – Regina v Chippenham Justices ex parte Harris QBD 28-Jan-1994
. .
Cited – Regina 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:

Cited – Mills 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:

Cited – Sheffield 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:

Cited – Blench 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 . .
Cited – Sykes v Crown Prosecution Service (Manchester) Admn 16-Oct-2013
The defendant appealed against his conviction for obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty, saying that there had been no evidence that at the time of the events, the officer was acting in the lawful execution of his duty. He . .
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:

Cited – The 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 . .
Cited – Royal 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

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

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 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:

Cited – Norman 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 . .
Cited – 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. . .
Endorsed – Bracegirdle v Oxley and Cobley 1947
The facts proved or admitted pointed inescapably to the conclusion that the drivers had driven dangerously. But the justices, in defiance of Divisional Court authority, concluded that the driving was not dangerous. The point has been decided . .
Cited – Regina 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:

Cited – Regina 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. . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Skelton, 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 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 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:

Cited – Hooper 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 (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:

Cited – ANS 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:

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

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

Cited by:

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

Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Chief 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:

Cited – Baxendale-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. . .
Cited – 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.
Cited – Mastercard UK Members Forum Ltd Mastercard International Inc CAT 28-Jul-2006
. .
Cited – Perinpanathan, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court and Another CA 4-Feb-2010
The appellant’s daughter had been stopped entering the country with andpound;150,000 in cash. The police sought an order for its forfeiture, suspecting a link with terrorism. The magistrates found no evidence of such, and declined to make the order, . .
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:

Cited – Makro Properties Limited v Nuneaton and Bedworth BC Admn 2012
A minor use will constitute rateable occupation for the purposes of liability to occupied rates. . .
Cited – Kenya 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