Category: Magistrates

K (REMO – Power of Magistrates to Issue Bench Warrant): FC 12 May 2017

Whether magistrates sitting in the Family Court have the power to issue a warrant for the arrest of an alleged maintenance debtor who has failed to obey an order to attend for questioning as to his means.
Held: They did, though in this case personal service of the order had not yet been achieved and the matter was remitted.

Judges:

Peter Jackson J

Citations:

[2017] EWFC 27, [2017] WLR(D) 329

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 31E

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Family, Magistrates

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.584197

Regina v Essex Justices ex parte Final: QBD 1963

Magistrates had announced a case to be proved, but had then been persuaded to reconsider their verdict.
Held: The magistrates became functus officio, and had no remaining jurisdiction to substitute a different verdict, either way.

Citations:

[1963] 2 QB 816

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Distinguished – Steward v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 30-Jul-2003
Magistrates announced that there was no case to answer, but then agreed evidence was put before them which clearly undermined the basis of that decision.
Held: It was open to the magistrates to correct their mistake immediately. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 25 March 2022; Ref: scu.186521

Woodward and Others, Regina v: Admn 27 Apr 2017

Appeal by the Crown by way of case stated against a decision of Wakefield Magistrates’ Court dismiss the prosecution of the five Respondents for offences under section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (‘the 2006 Act’) on the basis that the proceedings were brought out of time.

Judges:

Hiickinbottom LJ, Kerr J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1008 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.582155

Crown Prosecution Service, Regina (on the Application of) v Uxbridge Magistrates: Admn 16 Jan 2007

Prosecutor’s request for judicial review after acquittal of the interested party of charges of assault on his wife. She had failed to attend at court to give evidence and the magistrates had refused to either adjourn or admit her written statement as hearsay evidence.
Held: The refusal of an adjournment was within the discretion of the bench, but there had been evidence that she could not attend being in hospital and the statement should have been admitted: ‘Section 116 of the 2003 Act provides specifically for the admission of a written statement of a witness unavailable through ill-health. On such an application the court must consider the matters set out in section 116(4) and the interests of justice. The witness statement had been taken on 26th July, the same date on which photographs were taken. The defendant was able to challenge the contents of the statement by giving evidence, and his ability to do that was not hampered. This is not to say that adducing the written evidence would been an ideal form of trial, but it would have been a good second best which would, in my judgment, have enabled the trial to proceed without unfairness to the defendant.’

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 205 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003 116

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.248933

Regina v Knightsbridge London Crown Court ex parte Marcrest Properties Ltd: CA 1983

The court was asked not to renew a gaming licence on the basis that the company was not a fit and proper person. They had a practice of repeatedly accepting cheques from persons whose previous cheques had been dishonoured, and in circumstances in which the licence holder knew that the new cheques would be dishonoured on first presentation.
Held: This amounted to a breach of section 16.
Ackner LJ said: ‘The course of dealing between Marcrest and its customers over a long period and involving numerous cheques demonstrated that it was the intention of the parties that there was to be no legal right to have a cheque honoured when it was presented. The only lawful cheque contemplated by s 16(2) and (3) is one in which there is a common expectation of payment on presentation within two days. What was provided was a ‘sham’; it was no better than, if as good as, a postdated cheque. As the Lord Justice rightly commented, its function was merely to record a loan of money or tokens to that value.’ and ‘The clear purpose of section 16 is to protect the punters against themselves. They are not to be given by the casinos so much rope that they eventually hang themselves, figuratively or otherwise.’

Judges:

Ackner LJ

Citations:

[1983] 1 WLR 300, [1983] 1 All ER 1148

Statutes:

Gaming Act 1968 16

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Aspinall’s Club Ltd v Al-Zayat CA 19-Oct-2007
The claimant had sued the defendant for non-payment under a cheque for andpound;2 million. The cheque had been issued to replace earlier cheques given but not met, for sums staked for gambling at the claimant’s casino. The defendant said that the . .
Cited – Aspinall’s Club Ltd v Al-Zayat ComC 3-Sep-2008
The claimant sought payment on a cheque in respect of gamblig debts incurred by the defendant. Teare J said: ‘The ordinary and natural meaning of credit in the context of section 16 of the Act is ‘time to pay’, in the sense of deferring or . .
Cited – The Ritz Hotel Casino Ltd v Al Daher QBD 15-Aug-2014
The claimant sought to recover andpound;1m on unpaid cheques. The cheques represented half of the sum gambled away by the defendant in one evening. She now alleged that the claimant had not complied with its duties under the 2005 Act to act . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Magistrates, Licensing

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.259933

Vasey v Vasey: CA 1985

The wife had deserted her husband. The magistrates reduced her maintenance saying that her behaviour was gross and obvious.
Held: Her appeal was upheld. The magistrates should have first made findings on each element listed in 3(1) and only then balance those factors so as to make an order which was just and reasonable in all the circumstances. The most important function was finding the balance between needs and resources. Only if conduct was exceptional should it weigh in the balance. The court should be reluctant to make judgments about the behaviour of one party without hearing as to the entire conduct of both parties during the marriage.

Citations:

[1985] FLR 596, [1985] 15 Fam Law 158

Statutes:

Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates Courts Act 1978 2 3(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Kyte v Kyte CA 22-Jul-1987
The parties disputed an ancillary relief claim on their divorce. The husband had been suicidally depressed. The wife had committed adultery over a long time and also assisted her husband’s failed suicide. The husband now sought to rely upon her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Magistrates

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.235270

Macrae v Macrae: CA 1949

The question was as to the Magistrates’ jurisdiction under the Acts, which depended upon ordinary residence: ‘Ordinary residence can be changed in a day. A man is ordinarily resident in one place up till a particular day: he then cuts the connection he has with that place – in this case he left his wife, in another case he might have disposed of his house or anyhow left it and made arrangements to make his home somewhere else. Where there are indications that the place to which he moves is the place which he intends to make his home for at any rate an indefinite period, then as from that date in my opinion he is ordinarily resident at the place to which he has gone.’

Judges:

Somerville LJ

Citations:

[1949] P 397

Statutes:

Summary Jurisdiction (Separation and Maintenance) Act 1895

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Applied – Lewis v Lewis FD 1956
A wife returning to live in England after a period living in Australia, resumed her ordinary residence when she began her voyage by sea back to England. . .
Cited – Nessa v Chief Adjudication Officer HL 3-Nov-1999
Mrs. Nessa arrived at Heathrow aged 55 having lived all her life in Bangladesh. Her husband, Mr. Mobarak Ali, had lived in the United Kingdom from 1962 until he died in 1975 and when she arrived here, Mrs. Nessa had a right of abode. She hoped to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.200338

Regina v McGrath: CACD 2003

The section 51(7) notice stated that the person had been sent for trial to the Crown Court ‘on the following indictable only offence: burglary, aggravated.’ Apart from the misspelling, the point was taken on appeal that the notice did not make clear the nature of the indictable-only offence; the appellant had not been charged with the distinct offence of aggravated burglary; the notice had not followed the wording of the relevant schedule to the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, which had specified the circumstances in which a burglary would indeed be an indictable-only offence (as the case in point undoubtedly was).
Held: The court recognised a real distinction between the sending of a defendant to the Crown Court and the subsequent notice, an administrative act; completion of the notice could not retrospectively invalidate the sending. Laws LJ: ‘ We would say only that, given the plain unqualified obligation on magistrates’ courts imposed by section 51(1) and the fact that section 51(7) is on any view adjectival to that obligation, we consider that it would be difficult to argue that the very existence of the section 51(1) duty in any case depends on the fulfillment of the section 51(7) duty. That is not to say that a failure to fulfill section 51(7) might not give rise to due process arguments on behalf of a defendant if prejudice or unfairness were occasioned, but nothing of that kind is in reality in play here . . ‘

Judges:

Laws LJ

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Crim 2062

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Bentham, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Prison Wandsworth Admn 7-Feb-2006
The defendant sought a writ of habeas corpus, saying that he had been wrongfully committed to the crown court under the 1998 Act. The note referred only to a ‘conspiracy without further specification. The crown court had remitted him to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.238431

Morgan, Re Judicial Review: QBNI 15 Jan 2014

The applicant sought leave to bring judicial review of a prosecutor’s decision to lay a complaint before the magistrates alleging offences associated with an allegation of conspiracy to rob. He said that the decision fell foul of the requirement under the 1981 order that he be resident within the relevant district.

Judges:

Girvan LJ

Citations:

[2014] NIQB 2

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Magistrates’ Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 16

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Citing:

Cited – Regina (Caherty) v Belfast Justices 1978
Section 7 of the 1945 Act provides that a person charged in Northern Ireland with the commission of indictable offence may be proceeded against in any county or place in which (a) he is apprehended; (b) he is in custody in relation to the offence; . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Northern Ireland, Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.520923

Global Cash and Carry Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Birmingham Magistrates’ Court and Others: Admn 19 Feb 2013

The claimant sought an order quashing a search warrant, and for damages. The officer had said that he had evidence that the claimants were storing an distributing from the premises large quantities of counterfeit goods and drugs.
Held: The warrants were unlawful, in that the magistrates had applied the wrong test for their issue, in failing to be satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for the issue of the warrant.

Judges:

Moses LJ, Kenneth Parker J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 528 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 8, Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 1 70(1)(a), Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Chief Constable of Lancashire Ex Parte Parker and Another QBD 27-May-1992
Officers conducting a search presented a two paged document headed ‘warrant to enter and search premises’ which set out all the information required by section 15(6)(a). It did not, however, on its face identify the articles or persons to be sought . .
Cited – McGrath v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and Another HL 12-Jul-2001
Police were not liable for false imprisonment after arresting a person named in a warrant which had been issued by another police force as a result of one person who was arrested falsely giving the other person’s name. The warrant might have been . .
Cited – Energy Financing Team Ltd and others v The Director of the Serious Fraud Office, Bow Street Magistrates Court Admn 22-Jul-2005
The claimants sought to set aside warrants and executions under them to provide assistance to a foreign court investigating alleged unlawful assistance to companies in Bosnia Herzegovina.
Held: The issue of such a warrant was a serious step. . .
Cited – Redknapp and Another v Commissioner of the City of London Police and Another Admn 23-May-2008
The claimant challenged the legality of a search warrant and the method of its execution on his home. He complained that the police had ensured publicity for the execution of the warrant.
Held: The obtaining of a search warrant is never to be . .
Cited – Van Der Pijl and Another v The Crown Court At Kingston Admn 21-Dec-2012
The claimants challenged search warrants and the seizure of materials under the warrants.
Held: The Court emphasised the need for precision within the warrant itself. . .
Cited – Glenn and Co (Essex) Ltd and Others v HM Commissioners for Revenue and Customs and Another Admn 16-Nov-2011
The claimants challenged the legality of the issue and execution of search warrants issued on the request of the respondent.
Held: The search was executed unlawfully, but the relief granted was confined to a declaration. . .
Cited – Bhatti and Others v Croydon Magistrates’ Court and Others Admn 3-Feb-2010
The claimant challenged the valiity of search warrants used at his home. He said they were deficient in not including the information as required by the Act. The police said that they were in accordance with the Home Office guidance.
Held: . .
Cited – Gittins v Central Criminal Court Admn 14-Jan-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of decisions to issues search warrants to HMRC in respect of his premises. HMRC wanted to look for evidence of tax avoidance schemes which it thought might be unlawful. Until the morning of the hearing, HMRC . .
Cited – Power-Hynes and Another v Norwich Magistrates’ Court and Another Admn 26-Jun-2009
The claimant accountant sought the quashing of a search warrant granted by the respondent to the police.
Held: The warrant failed to comply with s. 15(6)(b) of PACE and was invalid. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Magistrates

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.472813

Rymer v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 21 Jul 2010

The defendant had pleaded guilty by post, but on being called to court to face a possible disqualification from driving he was refused the chance to re-open his plea. The action had been begun under the written charge procedure introduced by the 2003 Act. The notification he had been given said that the conviction dated from the first hearing.
Held: The defendant’s appeal failed. The adjourned hearing was a resumption of the hearing at which the conviction had already been entered, and the defendant had no automatic right to re-open his plea. Nevertheless the court to which the case was remitted should hear a request to be allowed to re-open the plea on established principles.

Judges:

Hooper LJ, Rafferty J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 1848 (Admin), (2010) 174 JP 473

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 12(9), Criminal Justice Act 2003 29(1), Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Commencement No. 21) Order 2008 (SI 2008/1424), Criminal Procedure Rules 2010 37.8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates, Road Traffic, Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.420996

Whelehan v Director of Public Prosecution: 1995

A police officer saw a motorist, the appellant, sitting in the driver’s seat of a car with keys in the ignition in the early hours of the morning, and smelt alcohol on his breath. The conversation which then took place between the officer and the offender was not under caution. The magistrates found it not to have been in breach of the Code of Practice.
Held: The finding was upheld by the Divisional Court.

Citations:

[1995] RTR 177

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Applied – Ridehalgh, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 23-May-2005
The appellant a police officer had arrived at work having been drinking. A senior officer asked if he had driven to work. He replied yes, and on that basis had been convicted of driving with excess alcohol. He appealed saying that the question . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Magistrates

Updated: 02 February 2022; Ref: scu.226697

Jones, Regina (on The Application of) v Liverpool and Knowsley Magistrates’ Court: Admn 8 Dec 2016

Challenge to the decision of the respondents to proceed with the claimant’s trial without him having been granted legal aid, and in his absence.

Judges:

Treacy LJ, Wilkie J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 3520 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Aid, Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573915

Lee v Leeds Crown Court: 2006

The appellant appealed against the refusal of the Leeds Magistrates to vary or discharge a restraining order under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The recorder at the crown court ruled the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Because section 5(4) was silent as to any right of appeal it was accepted that the only possible avenue was the general right of appeal under section 108 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980. This, however, did not avail the appellant because the decision sought to be appealed did not fall within the meaning of the word ‘sentence’ in that section. Bean J. pointed out that, absent any right of appeal under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, there would, in appropriate circumstances, be a remedy by judicial review or case stated on a point of law.

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 2550 Admin

Statutes:

Protection from Harassment Act 1997, Magistrates Court Act 1980 108

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Langley v Preston Crown Court and others CACD 30-Oct-2008
The defendant sought to appeal against a ‘stand-alone’ anti-social behaviour order. The parties disputed whether an appeal lay. The act created an appeal against the making of an order but in this case it was a renewed order.
Held: In the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.277384

Media Protection Services Ltd v Crawford and Another: Admn 16 Aug 2012

MPS had contracted to bring private prosecutions for unlawful reception and display of premier league football matches. It now appealed from a dismissal of the information.
Held: The appeal failed. The director laying the information in the name of a private limited company, when acting for reward on behalf of a client in the course of its business, amounted to acting as a solicitor within the meaning and in breach of section 20 of the 1974 Act and was carrying on a reserved legal activity, namely the conduct of litigation, contrary to the Legal Services Act 2007, with the result that the proceedings were void.

Judges:

Stanley Burnton LJ , Kenneth Parker J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 2373 (Admin), [2012] CP Rep 48, [2012] WLR(D) 250, [2012] CTLC 82, (2013) 177 JP 54, [2013] Crim LR 155, [2013] 1 WLR 1068

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 297(1), Solicitors Act 1974 20, Legal Services Act 2007

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates, Legal Professions

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.463794

Harvey v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 29 Jan 2021

The defendant entered an unequivocal plea of guilty before the magistrates and was committed for sentence. By the Crown Court. After sentence, he sought to set aside the plea, wanting to file a defence under the 2015 Act, and requested a direction allowing that under section 142 of the 1980 Act. He was refused.
Held: The appeal was refused. Once sentence had been passed section 142 could have no application. Section 142 was directed at correcting an error made by the magistrates themselves. The reference in the section to sentencing referred only to a sentence passed by the magistrates.

Lord Burnett of Maldon Cj, Bryan J
[2021] EWHC 147 (Admin), [2021] 4 WLR 10, [2021] 1 Cr App R 23, [2021] 1 WLR 2721, [2021] Crim LR 400, [2021] WLR(D) 68
Bailii, WLRD
Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 142(2), Modern Slavery Act 2015 45
England and Wales

Magistrates

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.658029

Director of Public Prosecutions v Bird: Admn 29 Oct 2015

Appeal by the prosecution by way of case stated in respect of a decision at the Bristol Magistrates’ Court refusing to allow the prosecution to proceed on a charge of criminal damage which another bench of magistrates, lay justices, had already dismissed.

Beatson LJ, Wilkie J
[2015] EWHC 4077 (Admin), [2016] 4 WLR 82
Bailii

Magistrates

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564419

Marshall v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 17 Jun 2015

A car was seen speeding. Husband and wife each said that they did not know who was driving it in response to notices requiring that information. Mrs M now appealed against her conviction under section 172.

Beatson LJ, Kenneth Parker J
[2015] EWHC 2333 (Admin), (2016) 180 JP 33
Bailii
Road Traffic Act 1988 172(2)(b)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Weightman v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 6-Mar-2007
Magistrates to identify reasons for finding guilt
The defendant appealed agains his conviction under section 172 of the 1988 Act. He had been abroad when his car attracted the speeding fine, but had been unable to identify which iof the several people who might have driven it, had done so.
Cited – Howarth v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis QBD 3-Nov-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of a decision to search him whilst travelling to a public protest in London. A previous demonstration involving this group had resulted in criminal damage, but neither the claimant nor his companions were found to . .
Cited – Tuthill v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 15-Nov-2011
The defendant appealed against his conviction, saying that the evidence was obtained by means of an unlawful search by an officer. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Road Traffic

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.562467

Sir Hector Munro, Provost, and Other Members of The Town Council of Nairn v Forbes and Others, Burgesses of Nairn: HL 3 Jun 1785

Burgh – Election of Magistrates. – Held, that in the election of the Magistrates of a burgh, the Provost and other Councillors need not be resident burgesses, or inhabitants of the burgh, but that the bailies and office bearers, in the burgh of Nairn, must be chosen from amongst the burgesses resident. Also held, that the town clerk of the burgh is incapable of holding said office, and at same time of holding the office of one of the magistrates of the said burgh.

[1785] UKHL 3 – Paton – 23
Bailii
Scotland

Magistrates

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.562210

O’Connor v Aldershot Magistrates’ Court: Admn 15 Oct 2015

The claimant had been a defendant appearing at the respondent Court, and challenged orders made to exclude his supporters from the court. It was not suggested that there had been any disruption of the proceedings, but the order was made on the recommendation of the Court’s security manager.
Held: permission was given to bring judicial review proceedings.

Davis LJ, Ouseley J
[2015] EWHC 3429 (Admin)
Bailii

Magistrates

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.557130

Hughes, Re Application for Judicial Review v A Lay Magistrate and Another: QBNI 9 Dec 2021

(i) whether the judicial officer concerned, a Lay Magistrate, in acceding to two inter-related applications by the police and issuing two search warrants as requested, had the state of mind mandated by Article 10 PACE and (ii) whether the police applications were compliant with the requisite legal requirements. The applicant invites resolution of both questions in her favour and, further, contends that the searches executed by the police pursuant to the impugned warrants infringed her rights under Article 8 ECHR, contrary to section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Mccloskey LJ
[2021] NIQB 113
Bailii
Police and Criminal Evidence (NI) Order 1989 10, European Convention on Human Rights 8
Northern Ireland

Magistrates, Police, Human Rights

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.670946

George Smollett, Provost, Et Alii, Magistrates of Dumbarton v William Buntein, Et Alii, Burgesses of Dumbarton: HL 19 Feb 1730

Burgh royal. – desuetude. – election – The acts 1503, C. 80, 1535, c. 26, and 1609, c. 8, which disable persons not being actual traders and residenters within the burgh from being elected Magistrates, found to be in desuetude.
A councillor having been imprisoned on the eve of the election in virtue of a warrant obtained upon information of the adverse party-found not sufficient to avoid the election, there being such a number in favour of it as would have formed a majority notwithstanding he had been present.

[1730] UKHL 1 – Paton – 26, (1730) 1 Paton 26
Bailii
Scotland

Magistrates

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.554262

Regina v Whitehaven Justices ex parte Thompson: Admn 9 Oct 1998

Application for certiorari to quash a decision of the Whitehaven Magistrates’ Court to commit the applicant for trial to the Crown Court on two charges: the first, conspiring to supply heroin between December 1996 and July 1997; and the second, supplying heroin. A submission of no case was rejected.
Held: The request was refused: ‘the old-style committal proceedings were spread over no less than five days. Five witnesses, including Brassington, gave oral evidence and were cross-examined. Numerous witness statements were read. In her affidavit the magistrate makes it plain that she carried out a careful analysis and evaluation of the evidence that was led before her. Mr Latif commented on each individual item of evidence. He submitted that in itself each item did not support the existence of a conspiracy. It is not surprising that, looked at in isolation, each item did not support the count of conspiracy. But the magistrate was not looking at each item in isolation; she was looking at the cumulative effect of all the pieces of evidence that she identified in her affidavit. It is conceded that she was right to look at the evidence on that cumulative basis and to see whether a number of perhaps small indications when looked at in their own right, were sufficient in aggregate to mean that the applicant had a case to answer.
She having done that, having heard the witnesses, it is in practical terms quite impossible for this court, not having heard the evidence, to say that her decision was Wednesbury perverse. It is plain from the two authorities which I have cited that it is an inappropriate use of judicial review to challenge committal proceedings on the basis of insufficiency of evidence, save in the very clearest of cases. ‘

Vice President of the Queens Bench Division,
(Lord Justice Kennedy )
,
An
Mr Justice Sullivan
[1998] EWHC Admin 940
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Bedwellty Justices Ex Parte Williams HL 18-Sep-1996
A decision at committal to return an accused for trial is susceptible to judicial review where committal was based solely on inadmissible evidence or was based on evidence not reasonably capable of supporting it. The committal was quashed.
The . .
Cited – Neill v North Antrim Magistrates’ Court HL 1992
The question before the House was whether a committal was a nullity when the magistrate had received inadmissible evidence.
Held: Committal proceedings should only be judicially reviewed in cases of ‘really substantial error leading to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.139061

Regina v Bedwellty Justices Ex Parte Williams: HL 18 Sep 1996

A decision at committal to return an accused for trial is susceptible to judicial review where committal was based solely on inadmissible evidence or was based on evidence not reasonably capable of supporting it. The committal was quashed.
The ‘Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court has normally in judicial review proceedings jurisdiction to quash a decision of an inferior court, tribunal or other statutory body for error of law’
Lord Cooke of Thorndon said: ‘The right to cross-examine at a preliminary hearing finds no place in most human rights instruments, perhaps in none. It may not long survive anywhere in the United Kingdom. This case must be determined nevertheless on the footing that the right still exists here and may be of significant value, at least of a tactical kind, to the defence. Your Lordships are not entitled to prefer a changed conception of the public interest to the clear statutory law.’
‘In Ex parte Page the five members of the Appellate Committee (Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Griffiths, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Mustill and Lord Slynn of Hadley) were unanimous that usually any error of law made by an administrative tribunal or inferior court in reaching its decision can be quashed by certiorari for error of law. There were, however, observations to the effect that as regards an inferior court of law a statutory provision that its decision is to be `final and conclusive’ or the like will confine the remedy to cases of abuse of power, acting outside jurisdiction in the narrow sense, or breach of natural justice.’
Lord Cooke agreed: ‘My Lord, in my respectful opinion it would be both illogical and unsatisfactory to hold that the law of judicial review should distinguish in principle between a committal based solely on inadmissible evidence and a committal based solely on evidence and a committal based solely on evidence not reasonably capable of supporting it. In each case there is in truth no evidence to support the committal and the committal is therefore open to quashing on judicial review. Nonetheless there is a practical distinction. If justices have been of the opinion on admissible evidence that there is sufficient to put the accused on trial, I suggest that normally on a judicial review application a court will rightly be slow to interfere at that stage. The question will more appropriately be dealt with on a no case submission at the close of the prosecution evidence, when the worth of that evidence can be better assessed by a judge who has heard it, or even on a pre-trial application grounded on abuse of process. In practice successful judicial review proceedings are likely to be rare in both classes of case, and especially rare in the second class.’

Lord Cooke of Thorndon
Gazette 18-Sep-1996, [1997] AC 225, [1996] 2 Cr App R 594, [1996] 3 All ER 737
Supreme Court Act 1981 29(3)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Neill v North Antrim Magistrates’ Court HL 1992
The question before the House was whether a committal was a nullity when the magistrate had received inadmissible evidence.
Held: Committal proceedings should only be judicially reviewed in cases of ‘really substantial error leading to . .

Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Department of Education and Employment ex parte Begbie CA 20-Aug-1999
A statement made by a politician as to his intentions on a particular matter if elected could not create a legitimate expectation as regards the delivery of the promise after elected, even where the promise would directly affect individuals, and the . .
Cited – R, Regina v CACD 4-Apr-2008
The defendant appealed his conviction for rape, saying that the complainant’s evidence had wrongfully been allowed to be given over a remote video link. Provisions to allow such means of giving evidence had been intended to be phased in only as . .
Cited – Hamill, Re Judicial Review (No 2) QBNI 8-Dec-2017
. .
Cited – Regina v Whitehaven Justices ex parte Thompson Admn 9-Oct-1998
Application for certiorari to quash a decision of the Whitehaven Magistrates’ Court to commit the applicant for trial to the Crown Court on two charges: the first, conspiring to supply heroin between December 1996 and July 1997; and the second, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.86109

Regina v Haringey Justices Employment ex parte Branco: Admn 24 Oct 1997

The defendant sought judicial review of his conviction saying that the chairwoman knew his mother and was antipathetic to her, and had shown bias in the trial.
Held: There had been confusion, but no real risk of bias. The review was refused.

[1997] EWHC Admin 922
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Gough (Robert) HL 1993
The defendant had been convicted of robbery. He appealed, saying that a member of the jury was a neighbour to his brother, and there was therefore a risk of bias. This was of particular significance as the defendant was charged with conspiracy with . .
Cited – Regina v Hereford Magistrates’ Court (ex parte Rowlands, Ingram); Regina v Harrow Youth Court (ex parte Prussia) Admn 10-Feb-1997
The power to adjourn a trial is conferred upon Justices by statute. The divisional court will intervene where defendants have been deprived of a fair opportunity to present their case. The decision whether to grant an adjournment is not a mechanical . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.137867

Regina v Swindon Magistrates’ Court; Swindon Crown Court; Chief Constable of Wiltshire Police ex parte Nangle, Regina v Staines Magistrates’ Court; Metropolitan Police Commissioner ex parte Westfallen, Regina v Staines: Admn 2 Dec 1997

The claimants challenged decisions of the magistrates in cases where they had refused to ask how the claimants had been brought within the jurisdiction. They said that they had been brought here under wrongful disguised extraditions.

[1997] EWHC Admin 1076
England and Wales

Magistrates, Extradition

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.138021

Regina v Harlow Justices ex parte Gumble: Admn 21 Oct 1997

The applicant was in breach of his community service order. He applied for legal aid, on the basis that he risked losing his liberty. At the hearing the officer indicated he was not seeking revocation of the order. The court refused legal aid. ‘Proceedings for breach of a community service order – and I would think also a probation order – constitute an exception to the general rule that any enquiries made of a prosecutor must not trespass into the realm of sentence. It is entirely proper for the prosecutor – that is, the community service organiser or the probation officer – to invite the court to revoke the order concerned or indeed to express the view that the order should be allowed to continue, notwithstanding a breach. That is because that officer is in a good position to form a view of the prospects of success for the order if it continues’. It could not be said that the magistrates decision was so perverse as to allow a judicial review.

Lord Justice Kennedy VP And Mrs Justice Smith
[1997] EWHC Admin 905
Criminal Justice Act 1991 Sch 2
England and Wales

Legal Aid, Magistrates

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.137850

Regina v Dudley Magistrates Court ex parte Hollis; Robert v Same: Admn 25 Nov 1997

An award of costs is inevitable after a finding of statutory nuisance and such costs include cost of establishing the nuisance. ‘The wide discretion as to whether to grant an adjournment conferred by section 10 and section 54 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 cannot, usually, be impugned. But it is a power which must not be exercised in a manner which undermines the statute under which the proceedings are brought or in a way which deprives a litigant of rights conferred by that statute. An adjournment cannot be granted if the only purpose is to avoid the consequences which the law provides will follow, should the hearing continue.’

Moses J, Lord Justice Schiemann
Times 12-Dec-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 1043, [1999] 1 WLR 642, [1998] 2 EGLR 19, [1998] EHLR 42, [1998] Env LR 354, [1998] 1 All ER 759, [1998] 18 EG 133, (1998) 30 HLR 902
Bailii
Environmental Protection Act 1990, Magistrates Courts Act 1980 54
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Walsall Justices, ex parte W (a minor) QBD 1990
A youth was charged with causing grievous bodily harm. His trial was fixed for 11 October 1988. On the date of trial, the prosecution applied for an adjournment on the grounds that, if the trial proceeded immediately and the magistrates decided that . .

Cited by:
Cited – North British Housing Association Ltd v Matthews, Same v Others CA 21-Dec-2004
In each case the tenants requested adjournment of the possession proceedings brought against them by the landlord for arrears of rent to allow them time to bring the arrears below the level at which a possession order could be made. In each case it . .
Cited – Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Hooper QBD 16-Feb-2005
The police applied to the court for a closure order in respect of premises they said were being used for the sale of Class A drugs. The tenant sought an adjournment, which was granted as were two later applications. On the last hearing, the police . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Magistrates

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.137988

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.

Times 19-Nov-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 885
Environmental Protection Act 1990 80(4) 80(6)
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Polychronakis Chief Legal and Property Officer for and on Behalf of Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council v Richards and Jerroms Limited Admn 2-Jul-1997
. .

Cited by:
See Also – Polychronakis Chief Legal and Property Officer for and on Behalf of Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council v Richards and Jerroms Limited Admn 2-Jul-1997
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Magistrates

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.137830

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.

[1997] EWHC Admin 760
Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 19
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Edwards; Regina v Brandy CACD 9-May-1996
The court set the standards for sentencing for burglary of dwellingouses. If the house was unoccupied the sentence should be 3 years; If occupied then 4 years was the appropriate starting point. . .
Cited – Regina v Newham Juvenile Court ex parte F (A Minor) QBD 1986
F who was 16 years old when he appeared before the juvenile court charged with robbery and possession of an imitation firearm. The justices decided to proceed summarily. No plea was taken. After being released on bail, he later appeared before a . .
Cited – 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. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.137705

Hemming Mp v Birmingham City Council: Admn 11 Mar 2015

The claimant, a local MP had brought proceedigs in the magistrates court against the authority in respect of its alleged failure to control litter. He appealed by case stated against an order that he pay the authority’s costs of defending the action, amd now challenged the cae as stated saying that it was inadeuate.
Held: The challenge failed.

[2015] EWHC 1472 (Admin)
Bailii

Magistrates, Costs

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550013

Letherbarrow v Warwickshire County Council: Admn 15 Dec 2014

This is an appeal by way of case stated from a decision of the Warwickshire Justices to convict the appellant on a number of counts of contraventions of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It is argued that the prosecution had failed to comply with the time limits laid down by section 31(1) of that Act.

Bean LJ, Hickinbottom J
[2014] EWHC 4820 (Admin)
Bailii
Animal Welfare Act 2006 31(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Riley and Others v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 18-Oct-2016
The defendants appealed by case stated from convictions under the 2006 Act arising from the treatment of cows including at a slaughterhouse. Arguments were put that the prosecution was time barred.
Held: The court recognsed the limited role of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547573

Rex 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 nullity’ because ‘it proceeded on evidence which must have compelled this court to quash the conviction had an application for that purpose been made.’

Lord Alverstone CJ
[1912] KB 362
England and Wales
Cited by:
Followed – Bannister 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. . .
Applied – 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 . .
Cited – Mathialagan, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Southwark and Another CA 13-Dec-2004
Liability Orders were made against the appellant in respect of non-domestic rates in respect of two properties. The orders were made in the absence of the appellant or any representative. Application for judicial review was made to re-open the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.220277

Hamill, Re Judicial Review (No 2): QBNI 8 Dec 2017

Stephens LJ and Keegan J
[2017] NIQB 118
Bailii
Northern Ireland
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Bedwellty Justices Ex Parte Williams HL 18-Sep-1996
A decision by magistrates to commit a case to the Crown Court in the absence of any admissible evidence is a reviewable decision. The committal was quashed.
The ‘Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court has normally in judicial review . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.636981

C and D, Regina (on the Application of) v Sheffield Youth Court and Another: Admn 23 Jan 2003

In making its sentencing decision the Youth Court should take into account any undisputed fact put forward in mitigation, such as the good character of the accused, and the Youth Court must consider the sentencing powers of the Crown Court under section 91(3) and the guidance that has been given as to their exercise – ‘If, on the basis of that guidance, there is no real possibility of such a sentence, committal is inappropriate.’ and ‘Was the decision of the Youth Court wrong? The test is one appropriate to a review court rather than one making the original decision. Parliament has clearly given the original decision to the Youth Court, and in terms that admit of some latitude: … There is normally a range of appropriate sentencing decisions available, and a sentence within that range cannot be said to be wrong: . . .It is not sufficient for the High Court to consider that it would have made a different decision under section 24(1) to that of the Youth Court. Only if the High Court is satisfied that the original decision was wrong may it interfere.’

Stanley Burnton J
[2003] EWHC 35 (Admin)
Bailii
Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 24(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Camberwell Youth Court; Regina (H) v Camberwell Youth Court QBD 23-Jul-2004
The DPP sought directions as to the issuing of voluntary bills of indictment to have transferred to the Crown Court, allegations of robbery against youths between 12 and 14.
Held: A child convicted of an offence for which an adult would . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.184929

Nicholas v Chester Magistrates Court: Admn 11 Jun 2009

The claimant sought judicial review of a refusal by the respondents to state a case.

Stanley Burnton LJ, Wilkie J
[2009] EWHC 1504 (Admin), (2009) 173 JP 542
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Alexander Admn 27-Jul-2010
The defendant had crashed his car after driving off with a girl, and while being chased by another car driven by her boyfriend. The police first cautioned him for false imprisonment, but then prosecuted him for careless driving. The prosecutor . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.347439

Rex v Cashiobury Hunderd Justices: KBD 1823

The court looked to the ouster of the its jurisdiction to issue an order of certiorari to a lower court ‘certiorari always lies, unless it expressly taken away, and an appeal never lies, unless it is expressly given by the statute . . .’

Abbott CJ
(1823) 3 Dow and Ry KB 35
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina 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: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.222194

Paolo, Regina (on The Application of) v City of London Magistrates Court: Admn 20 Jun 2014

The claimant challenged the issue of a warrant which the first defendant, the City of London Magistrates’ Court, issued on the application of the interested party, the Commissioner of Police for the City of London. The grounds of challenge were non-disclosure by the police to the court granting the warrant, and error on the part of the magistrate that he could have a reasonable belief that there was material at the claimant’s address which was likely to be of value to the investigation.

Laws LJ, Cranston J
[2014] EWHC 2011 (Admin)
Bailii

Magistrates, Police

Updated: 05 December 2021; Ref: scu.526971

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

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

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

Police, Magistrates

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518908

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

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

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Taxes Management

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518792

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

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

Haddon-Cave J
[2013] EWHC 3600 (Admin)
Bailii
Police Act 1996 89(2)
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Galbraith CCA 1981
Rejection of Submission of No Case to Answer
The defendant had faced a charge of affray. The court having rejected his submission of having no case to answer, he had made an exculpatory statement from the dock. He appealed against his conviction.
Held: Lord Lane LCJ said: ‘How then . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Brent Justices ex parte Linehan Admn 5-Oct-1998
The court was asked whether the Justices were entitled to find that the officers were acting in the execution of their duty without the production in court of the warrant or notice of authority. There was no evidence as to the actual existence of a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Magistrates

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518561

W v Warrington Magistrates Court: Admn 30 Jun 2009

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

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

Magistrates

Updated: 23 November 2021; Ref: scu.347307

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

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

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

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 21 November 2021; Ref: scu.516326

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

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

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

Police, Magistrates

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.653193

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

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

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

Magistrates

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.381465

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

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

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

Magistrates, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.564801

Regina v Howell (Errol): CACD 1981

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

Lord Justice Watkins
[1982] 1 QB 416, [1982] QB 416, [1981] 73 Crim App R 31
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Chief Constable of Cleveland Police v Mark Anthony McGrogan CA 12-Feb-2002
The Chief Constable appealed a finding of false imprisonment of the claimant. He had once been properly arrested, but before he was freed, it was decided that he should be held for court and an information laid alleging breach of the peace. They . .
Cited – Jarrett v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police CA 14-Feb-2003
The claimant sought damages for false imprisonment and assault after her wrongful arrest. She had waived her handbag at an officer investigating a disturbance and been arrested. The police said the arrest was lawful, she being suspected of common . .
Cited – The Chief Constable of Lancashire v Potter Admn 13-Oct-2003
The claimant appealed refusal of an Anti-Social Behaviour order by the magistrates. The respondent was a street prostitute in Preston. The magistrates had declined to aggregate her behaviour with that of others to find that it caused harrassment . .
Cited – Laporte, Regina (on the Application of) v Gloucestershire Constabulary and others Admn 19-Feb-2004
The court considered a claim for judicial review of a police officer’s decision to turn back a number of coaches. Each coach contained passengers en route to join a demonstration at an RAF base in Gloucestershire, the officer honestly and reasonably . .
Cited – Moss v McLachlan QBD 1985
Four striking miners were travelling in a convoy of motor vehicles and were stopped by a police cordon at a junction within several miles of four collieries. The inspector in charge believed with reason that a breach of the peace would be committed . .
Cited – Laporte, Regina (on the Application of) v Gloucestershire Constabulary and others CA 8-Dec-2004
The claimant had been in a bus taking her and others to an intended demonstration. The police feared breaches of the peace, and stopped the bus, and ordered the driver to return to London, and escorted it to ensure it did not stop.
Held: The . .
Cited – Regina v Nicol and Selvanayagam QBD 10-Nov-1995
The appellants appealed a bind-over for a finding that each appellant had been guilty of conduct whereby a breach of the peace was likely to be occasioned. The appellants, concerned about cruelty to animals, had obstructed an angling competition by . .
Cited – Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 23-Jul-1999
The police had arrested three peaceful but vociferous preachers when some members of a crowd gathered round them threatened hostility.
Held: Freedom of speech means nothing unless it includes the freedom to be irritating, contentious, . .
Cited – Wragg, Regina (on the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 15-Jun-2005
The court faced a case stated where the defendant had been accused of resisting arrest. The officers claimed to have anticipated a breach of the peace, having been called to a domestic dispute.
Held: Though the defendant had not behaved with . .
Cited – Hawkes v Director of Public Prosecutions CACD 2-Nov-2005
The defendant appealed her convictions for assaulting a police officer and obstructing him in the course of his duty. She had acted in an abusive manner, but there had been no violence.
Held: Whilst she might have been arrested on the basis . .
Cited – Hawkes, Regina (on the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 2-Nov-2005
The defendant appealed by way of case stated against her conviction for assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty. Her son was arrested in the early hours of the morning from her house. She followed him outside and sat in the police . .
Cited – Bibby v Chief Constable of Essex Police CA 6-Apr-2000
A bailiff sought to execute against goods in a shop against the will of the occupier. The police attended and when tempers were raised the police officer anticipated a breach of the peace by the bailiff and arrested him. He sought damages for that . .
Cited – Steel and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 23-Sep-1998
The several applicants had been arrested in different circumstances and each charged with breach of the peace contrary to common law. Under the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, the court can bind over a Defendant to keep the peace, if the Defendant . .
Cited – Laporte, Regina (on the application of ) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimants had been in coaches being driven to take part in a demonstration at an air base. The defendant police officers stopped the coaches en route, and, without allowing any number of the claimants to get off, returned the coaches to London. . .
Not preferred – Moss v McLachlan QBD 1985
There had been violent conflict between members of different unons in the context of the miners’ strike. The police had found it difficult to maintain the peace. The appellants were four of about sixty striking miners intent on a mass demonstration . .
Followed – Percy v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 13-Dec-1994
A woman protester repeatedly climbed over the perimeter fencing into a military base.
Held: The defendant had a choice between agreeing to be bound over and going to prison. Her refusal to agree to be bound over had an immediate and obvious . .
Cited – Hashman 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, . .
Cited – Wright v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis QBD 11-Sep-2013
The claimant sought damages for false imprisonment and infringement of his human rights in the manner of the defendant’s management of a demonstration in which he was involved. The issue was whether ilce action was justified on the basis that the . .
Cited – Humberside Police v McQuade CA 12-Jul-2001
Defendant’s appeal against an order giving judgment for the claimant in the action for damages to be assessed for wrongful arrest and personal injury. The claimant had been arrested in his home, purportedly for a breach of the peace. There was no . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Magistrates, Police

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.182926

Williams v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 24 Jul 2009

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

Thomas LJ, Burton J
[2009] EWHC 2354 (Admin)
Bailii
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 123 127
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Scunthorpe Justices ex parte McPhee and Gallagher Admn 24-Feb-1998
The defendant faced a charge of robbery. More than six months after the alleged offence the prosecution sought to add alternate charges including one of common assault. The magistrates declined jurisdiction on the ground that, more than six months . .

Cited by:
Cited – 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

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.376007

Regina v Manchester Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Hill and others: HL 1993

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

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.258451

Dodsworth v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 8 Nov 2010

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

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Magistrates

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.427934

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

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

Buxton LJ, Collins J
[1999] EWHC Admin 112, [1999] 2 CAR 188, [1999] 2 Cr App Rep 188
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Humphrys HL 1977
Humphrys was charged with driving while disqualified. The issue was the correctness of the identification by a police constable. In evidence, Humphrys denied that he was the driver, or indeed that he had driven any car during the year in question. . .
Cited – Mills v Cooper QBD 1967
Two sets of criminal proceedings were brought against the defendant for offences under section 127 of the Highways Act 1959 namely that of being a gypsy and, without lawful excuse, camping on a highway. The first proceedings were brought in respect . .
Cited – Imperial Tobacco Ltd v Attorney-General HL 1980
The applicant sought a declaration as to the lawfulness of a lottery scheme whilst criminal proceedings were pending against it for the same scheme.
Held: It was not necessary to decide whether a declaration as to the criminality or otherwise . .
Cited – Regina v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, ex Parte Bennett (No 1) HL 24-Jun-1993
The defendant had been brought to the UK in a manner which was in breach of extradition law. He had, in effect, been kidnapped by the authorities.
Held: The High Court may look at how an accused person was brought within the jurisdiction when . .
Cited – Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police HL 19-Nov-1981
No collateral attack on Jury findigs.
An attempt was made to open up in a civil action, allegations of assaults by the police prior to the making of confessions which had been disposed of in a voir dire in the course of a criminal trial. The plaintiffs had imprisoned having spent many . .
Cited – Regina v Horsham Justices, ex parte Reeves (Note) QBD 1980
The police had decided simply to re-lay charges which had already been dismissed after an extensive depositions hearing. The charges were simplified but essentially the same.
Held: This was an abuse of process. A court is possessed of a . .
Cited – Regina v Oxford City Justices, ex parte Smith QBD 1982
The defendant had given a positive breath test. The laboratory test showed a urine/alcohol proportion above the prescribed limit. He was warned that proceedings were possible. The summons was issued within the six months’ period prescribed by the . .
Cited – Regina v Croydon Justices Ex Parte Dean QBD 9-Mar-1993
The applicant a 17 year old assisted the police in a murder investigation on the understanding, induced by the police, that he would not himself be prosecuted. Some weeks later, at the instance of the CPS, the applicant was charged with a lesser . .
Cited – Regina v Guildford Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Healy CACD 1983
Magistrates faced with a claim of abuse of process should recognise the wider responsibility for upholding the rule of law which must be that of the High Court. If a serious question arises as to the deliberate abuse of extradition procedures a . .
Cited – Regina v Bros 1902
A magistrate should consider, before issuing a summons, whether it appears to be vexatious. . .
Cited – Regina v West London Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Klahn QBD 1979
The issue of a summons by a magistrate is a judicial act: ‘The duty of a magistrate in considering an application for the issue of a summons is to exercise a judicial discretion in deciding whether or not to issue a summons. It would appear that he . .
Cited – 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’. . .
Cited – 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’. . .
Cited – Stevenson v Garnett 1898
AL Smith LJ: ‘The court ought to be slow to strike out a statement of claim or defence, and to dismiss an action as frivolous and vexatious yet it ought to do so when as here, it has been shown that the identical question sought to be raised has . .
Cited – Walpole v Partridge and Wilson (A Firm) CA 8-Jul-1993
The plaintiff, who had been convicted before the magistrates, sued the solicitors who had acted for him in connection with a proposed appeal to the Crown Court for failure to lodge such an appeal. The solicitors applied to strike out the action, . .
Cited – Smith v Linskills CA 1996
The claimant, a convicted burglar took proceedings against his former solicitors. He alleged that the negligence of the solicitor caused his wrongful conviction.
Held: The case was dismissed. The claimant was seeking to re-litigate issues . .

Cited by:
Cited – Levey, Regina v CACD 27-Jul-2006
The defendant appealed against his conviction of manslaughter of his baby son. He said that a family court had previously investigated the same allegations and had explicitly found itself unable to say which of himself and the mother were . .
Cited – Panday v Virgil PC 9-Apr-2008
(Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant’s appeal against conviction had succeeded on the basis of apparent bias in the tribunal. He now appealed the order remitting the case to be reheard, saying that a fair trial was no longer possible.
Held: The . .
Cited – Craik, Chief Constable of Northumbria Police, Regina (on The Application of) v Newcastle Upon Tyne Magistrates’ Court Admn 30-Apr-2010
The claimant a retired Chief Constable sought judicial review of a decision to commit him for trial on a charge of unlawful imprisonment. The suspect and now prosecutor had been arrested and held in custody, but without the necessary timely review . .
Cited – Abdul and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 16-Feb-2011
The defendants appealed against convictions for using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour . . within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress. He had attended a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.139376

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

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

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

Cited by:
Cited – Gough and Another v Chief Constable of Derbyshire CA 20-Mar-2002
The appellants challenged the legality under European law of orders under the Act restricting their freedom of movement, after suspicion of involvement in football violence.
Held: Although the proceedings under which orders were made were . .
Cited – In re LU (A Child); In re LB (A Child) (Serious Injury: Standard of Proof); re U (A Child) (Department for Education and Skills intervening) CA 14-May-2004
In each case, the other parent appealed care orders where she had been found to have injured her children. In each case the sole evidence was the injury to the child’s health and expert medical evidence. The cases were referred following the . .
Cited – Re ET (Serious Injuries: Standard of Proof) FD 2003
The court heard a care application in which the baby had sustained skull, brain and other injuries alleged to be at the hands of her parents.
Held: The standard of proof was the civil standard of the balance of probabilities and directed . .
Distinguished – Regina (DJ) v Mental Health Review Tribunal; Regina (AN) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region) Admn 11-Apr-2005
Each applicant sought judicial review of the refusal of the tribunal to authorise their release from detention under the 1983 Act, saying that the Tribunal had accepted evidence to a lower standard of proof.
Held: Neither the criminal standard . .
Cited – Regina (McCann and Others) v Manchester Crown Court CA 9-Mar-2001
Proceedings applying for an anti-social behaviour order, were properly civil proceedings, with civil standards of evidence, and the Human Rights Act provisions relating to criminal proceedings, were not applicable either. The section included acts . .
Cited – Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
Cited – Campbell v Hamlet (as executrix of Simon Alexander) PC 25-Apr-2005
(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant was an attorney. A complaint was made that he had been given money to buy land, but neither had the land been conveyed nor the money returned. The complaint began in 1988, but final speeches were not heard until . .
Cited – W, Regina (on the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 8-Jun-2005
The defendant appealed a conviction for breaching an anti-social behaviour order. The order had prohibited him from committing any criminal act. It was now challenged as being too wide a prohibition.
Held: ‘The defendant had already been . .
Cited – AN, Regina (on the Application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region) and others CA 21-Dec-2005
The appellant was detained under section 37 of the 1983 Act as a mental patient with a restriction under section 41. He sought his release.
Held: The standard of proof in such applications remained the balance of probabilities, but that . .
Cited – Fiona Trust and Holding Corp and others v Privalov and others ComC 20-Oct-2006
The parties disputed whether their claim should be arbitrated.
Held: A claim as to whether the contract itself had been made was not one which could be arbitrated by provisions in that contract. It does not arise ‘under’ the contract. The . .
Cited – In re D; Doherty, Re (Northern Ireland); Life Sentence Review Commissioners v D HL 11-Jun-2008
The Sentence Review Commissioners had decided not to order the release of the prisoner, who was serving a life sentence. He had been released on licence from a life sentence and then committed further serious sexual offences against under-age girls . .
Cited – Langley v Preston Crown Court and others CACD 30-Oct-2008
The defendant sought to appeal against a ‘stand-alone’ anti-social behaviour order. The parties disputed whether an appeal lay. The act created an appeal against the making of an order but in this case it was a renewed order.
Held: In the . .
Cited – In re S-B (Children) (Care proceedings: Standard of proof) SC 14-Dec-2009
A child was found to have bruising consistent with physical abuse. Either or both parents might have caused it, but the judge felt it likely that only one had, that he was unable to decide which, and that they were not so serious that he had to say . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Evidence

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.179863

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

Magistrates have no Power to redo Mode of Trial

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

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

Cited by:
Doubted – Regina (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Camberwell Green Youth Court ex parte C W K and A QBD 5-Dec-2003
Magistrates have no Power to redo Mode of Trial
The prosecutor appealed against a refusal of the magistrates to revisit their decision on mode of trial.
Held: The court had no inherent jurisdiction to revisit their decision, and nor did the sections referred to grant any. Craske would have . .
Cited – Crown Prosecution Service (Redbridge Section), Regina (on the Application Of) v Redbridge Youth Court and Another Admn 8-Jun-2005
The CPS appealed the refusal of the respondent magistrates to decline jurisdiction to hear allegations against a youth.
Held: The magistrates had applied the wrong test, asking themselves whether a sentence substantially greater than two years . .
Cited – ZN and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Bromley Youth Court Admn 9-Jul-2014
The applicants, both aged 16, sought permission to bring judicial review of a decision to commit thme for trial at the adult Crown Court on theft charges along with a co-defendant adult (though 18).
Held: Permission was granted.
Hayden J . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.190497

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

Presumption against sending Youths to Crown Court

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

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

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.539976

Jones v South East Surrey Local Justice Area: Admn 12 Mar 2010

The defendant sought judicial review of a decision of the magistrates to adjourn a case where, on the day before, a differently constitued bench had refused an adjournment requested by the prosecution. On the first occasion the prosecutor had not had all the facts and the court had assumed that the fault was that of the prosecution. On the second day, further paperwork placed the fault with the police. The missing evidence was a DNA report.
Held: The request for review failed. There was a common law principle that a lower court has only limited power to re-visit and to revoke a previously made order although it can do so in the interests of justice, in particular, in changed circumstances. The efficacious administration of justice is a central legal policy behind the rule. Decisions will be fact sensitive. The situation here did involve a change of circumstances sufficient to invoke the common law power.

Leveson, Cranston JJ
[2010] EWHC 916 (Admin), (2010) 174 JP 342
Bailii
Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 8A 8B
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Newham Juvenile Court ex parte F (A Minor) QBD 1986
F who was 16 years old when he appeared before the juvenile court charged with robbery and possession of an imitation firearm. The justices decided to proceed summarily. No plea was taken. After being released on bail, he later appeared before a . .
Cited – Regina v Acton Youth Court ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 10-May-2000
The youth court had made an order that the victim could give evidence in-chief by video recording and the remainder of her evidence by television link. When the case came to trial before a differently constituted bench the defendant successfully . .
Cited – Watson, Regina (on the Application of) v Dartford Magistrates’ Court Admn 6-May-2005
The defendant faced road traffic summonses. On the last working day before the defendant’s trial the prosecution applied for an adjournment because two of their witnesses were unavailable. The application was refused. On the first day of the trial . .
Cited – Brett v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 16-Mar-2009
The defendant faced trial for driving whilst over the prescribed alcohol limit. On a pre-trial review, the prosecution had applied for the evidence of the analyst to be given under the hearsay provisions, on the basis that she was living abroad. She . .
Cited – F (A Minor), Regina (on the Application of) v Knowsley Magistrates Court Admn 15-Mar-2006
On its first application the CPS requested that the trial date be vacated because they had not received a full file of evidence. That application was refused. The case remained listed for trial that afternoon. In the afternoon the prosecution was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.408831

Lamont-Perkins v Royal Society for The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals (RSPCA): Admn 24 Apr 2012

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

Sir John Thomas P
[2012] EWHC 1002 (Admin)
Bailii
Animal Welfare Act 2006 4 31, Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 127(10
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Kerr v John Mottram Ltd ChD 1940
The court considered an application by a shareholder of a company to enforce an alleged contract for the sale of shares that he claimed were offered to him at a meeting of the company. The minutes of the company meeting did not support the . .
Cited – Regina v Haringey Magistrates’ Court ex parte Amvrosiou Admn 13-Jun-1996
When the appellant appeared at the Magistrates’ Court to answer a charge of driving whilst uninsured, a preliminary point was taken on her behalf that the prosecution had not been commenced within 6 months of the date on which evidence sufficient in . .
Cited – Terra Woningen BV v The Netherlands ECHR 17-Dec-1996
A court had considered itself bound by a decision of the Provincial Executive within the Netherlands adverse to the applicant company.
Held: That was in breach of article 6(1). There was not access to a tribunal with sufficient jurisdiction to . .
Cited – Morgans v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 29-Dec-1998
The defendant argued that once the prosecutor had all the material on which the prosecution was eventually brought, then for the purposes of section 11(2) time began to run.
Held: When considering the time limits for a prosecution under the . .
Cited – Morgans v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 18-Feb-2000
Without a warrant, the police had arranged for a call logger to retain details of the calls made, including the number called, time and duration. The dialing itself was a communication, which established a connection, through which further . .
Cited – Burwell v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 1-May-2009
The defendant appealed against the decision of the Magistrates to accept a prosecutor’s certificate as to compliance with time limits for commencing the prosecution. He argued that the police had all the evidence in their possession at an earlier . .

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.452904

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

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

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.268751

Regina v Brentford Justices ex parte Catlin: 1975

A decision by magistrates whether to issue a summons pursuant to information laid involves the exercise of a judicial function, and is not merely administrative.
A summons (or warrant) is merely machinery for giving a defendant notice of the proceedings and for getting him before the Court.
A magistrate who issues a summons or warrant without applying his mind to the information and completing this judicial exercise will be ‘guilty of dereliction of duty’.

Lord Justice Widgery
[1975] QB 455
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Craik, Chief Constable of Northumbria Police, Regina (on The Application of) v Newcastle Upon Tyne Magistrates’ Court Admn 30-Apr-2010
The claimant a retired Chief Constable sought judicial review of a decision to commit him for trial on a charge of unlawful imprisonment. The suspect and now prosecutor had been arrested and held in custody, but without the necessary timely review . .
Cited – London Borough of Newham, Regina (on the Application of) v Stratford Magistrates’ Court Admn 12-Oct-2004
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.408853

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

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

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.430848

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

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

Ward, Richards, Patten LJJ
[2012] EWCA Civ 1379, [2012] WLR(D) 300
Bailii
Child Support Act 1991, Child Support (Collection and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, European Convention on Human Rights 6
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Farley v Child Support Agency and Another; Farley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (No. 2) HL 28-Jun-2006
Magistrates were wrong to think they had a discretion to look at the validity of a liability assessment under child support legislation. The Act gave the payer alternative avenues of appeal, and therefore the Act should be read as it stated and the . .
Cited – Mubarak v Mubarak CA 2001
A judgment summons, issued was issued by the wife to enforce a lump sum order made against her husband in their divorce proceedings. The judge had performed his statutory duty which included having to satisfy himself under s. 25 of the 1973 Act of . .
Cited – Mubarak v Mubarak FD 30-Nov-2000
In ancillary relief proceedings, where a respondent company director conceded that the assets and income of a company could be treated as his own, it could be proper to draw aside the veil of incorporation. Nevertheless the court should be careful . .
Cited – Regina v A (Complainant’s Sexual History) (No 2) HL 17-May-2001
The fact of previous consensual sex between complainant and defendant could be relevant in a trial of rape, and a refusal to allow such evidence could amount to a denial of a fair trial to a defendant. Accordingly, where the evidence was so relevant . .
Cited – Regina v Rimmington; Regina v Goldstein HL 21-Jul-2005
Common Law – Public Nuisance – Extent
The House considered the elements of the common law offence of public nuisance. One defendant faced accusations of having sent racially offensive materials to individuals. The second was accused of sending an envelope including salt to a friend as a . .
Cited – Regina v Wolverhampton Magistrates Court ex parte Mould 1992
Kennedy LJ said: ‘the power to commit to prison [for a failure to pay local taxes] is plainly to be used as a weapon to extract payment rather than to punish’ . .
Cited – Lingens v Austria ECHR 8-Jul-1986
Freedom of expression, as secured in paragraph 1 of Article 10, constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for each individual’s self-fulfilment. Subject to paragraph 2, . .
Cited – Salabiaku v France ECHR 7-Oct-1988
A Zairese national living in Paris, went to the airport to collect, as he said, a parcel of foodstuffs sent from Africa. He could not find this, but was shown a locked trunk, which he was advised to leave alone. He however took possession of it, . .
Cited – Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .
Cited – Keogh v Regina CACD 7-Mar-2007
The defendant was charged under the 1989 Act. He complained that the effect of the Act was to put an unfair burden on him to establish that he was unaware of the damaging effects of disclosure.
Held: The Act did not comply with the defendant’s . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Child Support, Human Rights, Magistrates

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.465555

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

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

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

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Torts – Other, Magistrates

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.268721

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

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

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.511029

Farley v Child Support Agency and Another; Farley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (No. 2): HL 28 Jun 2006

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

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance
[2006] UKHL 31, Times 30-Jun-2006, [2006] Fam Law 735, [2006] 3 All ER 935, [2006] 2 FCR 713, [2006] 1 WLR 1817
Bailii
Child Support Act 1991 33(4), Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 , Child Support Act 1995
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Farley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (No 2) CA 22-Jun-2005
The Court of Apeal had previously considered an appeal from the grant of a liability order made by magistrates. It had become clear that the order had been made without jurisdiction.
Held: The order must be set aside. The court had no . .
Cited – Farley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Another CA 25-Jan-2005
The Respondent had sought a liability order against the appellant, the non-resident parent in respect of child support maintenance arrears. The appellant had asked the magistrates to consider whether he was liable to pay child support maintenance, . .
At First Instance – Farley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 12-Jul-2004
The defendant and his wife were separated. The Child Support Agency assessed the contributions he was to make, and eventually pursued him in the magistrates court for arrears. The defendant argued that whilst the Act did prevent the magistrates . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Social Security v Shotton and Others QBD 30-Jan-1996
Magistrates have no power to question an assessment made by the Child Support Agency when making a deduction order. . .
Cited – Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission HL 17-Dec-1968
There are no degrees of nullity
The plaintiffs had owned mining property in Egypt. Their interests were damaged and or sequestrated and they sought compensation from the Respondent Commission. The plaintiffs brought an action for the declaration rejecting their claims was a . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Social Security and Another v Harmon and Another CA 5-Jun-1998
. .

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

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.242926

Regina v Felixstowe Justices ex parte Leigh: CA 1987

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

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

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Magistrates

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.245939

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

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

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

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Costs

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.396600

Regina v Hereford Magistrates’ Court (ex parte Rowlands, Ingram); Regina v Harrow Youth Court (ex parte Prussia): Admn 10 Feb 1997

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

Lord Justice Bingham,
[1997] EWHC Admin 119, [1998] QB 110, [1997] 2 Cr App R 340, [1997] 2 WLR 854
Bailii
Magistrates Court Act 1980 10(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – 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. . .
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 Bradford Justices, ex parte Wilkinson 1990
A magistrates’ court should grant a defendant’s application for an adjournment where a witness was absent, and his evidence went to an issue critical to the defence case. . .
Cited – Regina v Bristol Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Rowles 1994
A court should grant an adjournment where a party’s witness was unable to attend, and that witness’ evidence was critical for a real issue in the case. Adjournments give rise to a proper sense of frustration in Justices confronted with frequent . .

Cited by:
Cited – Regina (A) v Kingsmead School Governors and Another QBD 13-Mar-2002
A permanently excluded pupil sought judicial review of the decision to exclude him. The school resisted saying that since there remained an avenue of appeal, a judicial review was inappropriate. He could still ask for a review of the decision of the . .
Cited – Regina (DR) (AM) v St George’s Catholic School and Others, Regina (A) v Kingsmead School Governors and Another CA 13-Dec-2002
The applicants appealed the refusal of judicial review of the refusals of their appeals against exclusion from school.
Held: The Act provided a full appeal procedure from the initial decision of the school’s head teacher, first to the . .
Cited – Regina v District Court Martial Sitting at RAF Lyneham (ex parte SAC Wayne Robert James Stoodley) Admn 20-May-1998
The defendant sought certiorari of a refusal of an adjournment of his hearing by the respondent. His defence team had requested an adjournment for a psychiatric report. The court had said such a report would not go as to mens rea.
Held: The . .
Cited – Stavrinou, Regina (on the Application Of) v Horseferry Road Justices Admn 22-Feb-2006
The claimant asked for judicial review of a decision to adjourn the case against him on a charge of driving with excess alcohol. The district judge had already insisted on the date fixed for the hearing as against the defendant, but then adjourned . .
Cited – Regina v Haringey Justices Employment ex parte Julian Branco Admn 24-Oct-1997
The defendant sought judicial review of his conviction saying that the chairwoman knew his mother and was antipathetic to her, and had shown bias in the trial.
Held: There had been confusion, but no real risk of bias. The review was refused. . .
Cited – W, Regina (on the Application of) v Camberwell Youth Court and Another Admn 10-Sep-2004
The defendant sought a Judicial review of the magistrates’ decision to adjourn case at request of prosecutor. The prosecutor had failed to comply with its disclosure obligations, and de-warned its witnesses before the date fixed for trial.
Cited – Imbeah, Regina (on The Application of) v Willesden Magistrates’ Court and Another QBD 14-Jul-2016
The claimant applied for judicial review of a decision of a Magistrates Court to convict her of driving with excess alcohol. The grounds were that the district judge acted unlawfully in proceeding with the trial without disclosure by the prosecution . .
Cited – Westminster City Council v Owadally and Another Admn 17-May-2017
Defendant must plea to charge, and not counsel
The defendants had, through their barrister, entered pleas of guilty, but the crown court had declared the convictions invalid because this had to have been done by the defendants personally, and remitted the cases and the confiscation proceedings . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Judicial Review

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.137064

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

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

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

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Magistrates

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.523657

Weightman v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 6 Mar 2007

Magistrates to identify reasons for finding guilt

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

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Magistrates

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.251159

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

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

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.197894