Kay and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Leeds Magistrates’ Court and Another: Admn 23 May 2018

Full Duty of Disclosure on Private Prosecutor

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

Gross LJ, Sweeney J
[2018] EWHC 1233 (Admin), [2018] WLR(D) 319, [2018] 2 Cr App R 27, [2018] 4 WLR 91, [2018] Crim LR 855, [2018] LLR 560
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina (DPP) v Sunderland MC Admn k 2014
When determining an application for a summons a magistrate must ascertain whether the allegation is of an offence known to law, and if so whether the essential ingredients of the offence are prima facie present
The court observed: ‘[The . .

Cited by:
Cited – Johnson v Westminster Magistrates’ Court Admn 3-Jul-2019
Public Office Misconduct – Acting As not While
The claimant sought judicial review of a decision to issue a summons against him alleging three offences of misconduct in public office. He was said to have issue misleading statements in support of the campaign leading up to the Referendum on . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.618111

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

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

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.266234

Powys County Council v Hurst: Admn 4 Jul 2018

Pension not attachable for Council Tax arrears

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

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

Rating, Magistrates

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.619004

Craik, Chief Constable of Northumbria Police, Regina (on The Application of) v Newcastle Upon Tyne Magistrates’ Court: Admn 30 Apr 2010

The claimant a retired Chief Constable sought judicial review of a decision to commit him for trial on a charge of unlawful imprisonment. The suspect and now prosecutor had been arrested and held in custody, but without the necessary timely review by the defendant’s officers. He now pursued a private prosecution.
Held: The review was granted. The issue of a summons involves the exercise of a judicial discretion. The use of proceedings to satisfy an ulterior motive can amount to an abuse, which can be stayed at a later point. In this case there was no evidence of the Chief Constable’s personal involvement at any stage in or near the actions complained of. There is, in general, no doctrine of criminal vicarious liability at common law. This case did not fall with any of the three exceptions. ‘[T]o pursue, a case which was . . hopelessly misconceived, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court, is to be guilty of the kind of serious misconduct which amply merits, indeed requires, the exercise by the Magistrates’ Court of its power to stay proceedings as an abuse of the process.’

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Vicarious Liability, Magistrates

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.408832

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

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

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Torts – Other, Magistrates

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.192187

Regina v West London Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Klahn: QBD 1979

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

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

Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Newcastle Upon Tyne Magistrates’ Court ex parte Still, Lawlan, Davidson, Pryor, and Forrest Admn 18-Sep-1996
A man was accused of a series of mortgage frauds. The defendants each gave evidence to the court. He made a complaint of perjury against each of them. The current defendants sought judicial review of a refusal to discharge the summonses.
Held: . .
Cited – Augusto Pinochet Ugarte and In the Matter of an Application for Leave To Move for Judicial Review Regina v Evans (Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate) Admn 28-Oct-1998
A provisional warrant had been issued by a magistrate for the arrest of the former president of Chile when visting London. The arrest had been in response to an extradition request from a judge in Spain and related to allegations of criminal acts by . .
Cited – Jones v Whalley HL 26-Jul-2006
The appellant had assaulted the respondent. He had accepted a caution for the offence, but the claimant had then pursued a private prosecution. He now appealed refusal of a stay, saying it was an abuse of process.
Held: The defendant’s appeal . .
Cited – Regina v Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court ex parte Fiona Watts Admn 8-Feb-1999
The defendant sought to have dismissed as an abuse of proces charges against her that as an officer of Customs and Excise prosecuting the now private prosecutor, she had committed various offences.
Held: The magistrate was vested with . .
Cited – Charlson, Regina (on the Application of) v Guildford Magistrates’ Court and others Admn 11-Sep-2006
The CPS had discontinued a prosecution. The magistrates were then asked to issue a summons for a private prosecution. The private prosecutor appealed against the refusal to issue the summons. A second summons was requested from a different . .
Approved – Green, Regina (on the Application of) v The City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court, Thoday, Thompson Admn 5-Dec-2007
The claimant appealed from the refusal by the magistrate to issue summonses for the prosecution for blashemous libel of the Director General of the BBC and the producers of a show entitled ‘Jerry Springer – The Opera.’
Held: The gist of the . .
Cited – Percy, Regina (on the Application of) v Corby Magistrates’ Court Admn 7-Feb-2008
The claimant sought judicial review of a decision of the magistrates not to issue summonses against two police officers. She had been demonstrating near a US base, but had refused to intervene and allowed a US officer to unlawfully arrest and detain . .
Cited – Scopelight Ltd and Others v Chief of Police for Northumbria CA 5-Nov-2009
The claimant sought return of items removed by the defendants under the 1984 Act. A decision had been made against a prosecution by the police. The police wished to hold onto the items to allow a decision from the second defendant.
Held: The . .
Cited – 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 – Ball v Johnson 29-May-2019
Summons granted for political lies allegation
(Westminster Magistrates Court) The court gave its reasons for acceding to a request for the issue of a summons requiring the defendant to answer a charge for three offences alleging misconduct in a public office.
Held: There was prima facie . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.237556

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

Clerk wrongly retired with Justices

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

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Natural Justice, Magistrates

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.183301

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

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

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

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.277928

Regina v Camborne Justices ex parte Pearce: QBD 1954

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

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

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Natural Justice

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.194531

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

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

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

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Natural Justice, Criminal Practice, Police

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.522381

Coxon v Manchester City Magistrates Court: Admn 11 Mar 2010

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

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Magistrates

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.408626

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

Police defendants not to have addresses withheld

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

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Police, Media

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.416458

Mills v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 3 Dec 2008

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

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Magistrates, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.293959

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

North Wales Police v Anglesey Justices: CA 16 Jul 2008

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

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

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

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

Updated: 29 September 2021; Ref: scu.281638

Al Hajjeh v Westminster Magistrates’ Court: Admn 13 Aug 2021

Mr Justice William Davis
[2021] EWHC 2283 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 29 September 2021; Ref: scu.667964

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

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

Updated: 25 September 2021; Ref: scu.599395

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

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

Updated: 23 September 2021; Ref: scu.138608

Director of Public Prosecutions v North Durham Justices: Admn 21 Feb 2003

[2003] EWHC 409 (Admin)
Bailii
Offences Against the Person Act 1861 20
England and Wales

Updated: 20 September 2021; Ref: scu.184969

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

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

Updated: 14 September 2021; Ref: scu.652801

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

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

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

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

The Director of Public Prosecutions v Vince and Others: Admn 25 Nov 2016

Justices accepting submission of no case to answer in excess alcohol case
Beatson LJ, Males J
[2016] EWHC 3014 (Admin), [2017] RTR 7, [2016] WLR(D) 668, [2017] ACD 8, [2017] 4 WLR 3, [2017] Crim LR 307
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Updated: 10 September 2021; Ref: scu.571952

Regina v Llanidloes Licensing Justices ex parte Davies: 1957

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

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

Royal Society for The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals (RSPCA) v Webb: Admn 22 Oct 2015

The Society appealed by case stated after discharge of orders it had obtained as to cats removed from the respondents’ home.
Beatson LJ, Mitting J
[2015] EWHC 3802 (Admin), (2016) 180 JP 68
Bailii
Animal Welfare Act 2006 20
England and Wales

Updated: 28 August 2021; Ref: scu.562470

Regina on the Application of Paul Rackham Limited v Swaffham Magistrates’ Court and the Environment Agency: Admn 22 Jun 2004

Refusal to stay a prosecution and to state case
Mr Justice Toulson The Honourable Mr Justice Newman
[2004] EWHC 1417 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 August 2021; Ref: scu.198305

Allen v London Borough of Ealing: Admn 20 Apr 2021

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

Updated: 16 August 2021; Ref: scu.661944

Kouyoumjian and Another v Hammersmith Magistrates Court and Another: Admn 29 Oct 2014

Challenge to grant of search warrants
[2014] EWHC 4028 (Admin), [2015] Crim LR 45
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 07 August 2021; Ref: scu.539831

Ward v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and others: HL 5 May 2005

The claimant had been taken under warrant to a mental hospital, but was found not to be suffering any mental illness. She complained that the arrest was unlawful, since the police officer had not been accompanied by the people named on the warrant. The House was asked whether a magistrate being requested to issue a warrant under the 1983 Act for a place of safety order, had the power to require the police officer executing the warrant to be accompanied by a named social worker or mental health worker.
Held: The intention under the 1983 Act had been to reduce the requirements for a warrant. The issue was not what was implied into the constable’s power to execute the warrant, but what was implied into the magistrate’s power to grant it. The attachment of the names was outdated, and was simply a nullity without vitiating the warrant. ‘Far from its being necessary to limit the powers granted by the warrant in this way, that purpose is more likely to be achieved if the powers are not cut down by insisting that named people be present, or by allowing the magistrate to impose other limitations, however ‘sensible’ they may seem at the time.’ The arrest had therefore been lawful though unaccompanied, and the action failed. The warrant request had been completed ineptly. There was nothing to indicate that the magistrate had applied his mind to the names shown on the request. The use of the procedure was severly circumscribed by the Act. The claimant’s distress was understandable, but his claim failed.
Lord Steyn, Lord Hutton, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell
[2005] UKHL 32, Times 09-May-2005, [2006] 1 AC 23, [2005] 2 WLR 1114
Bailii, House of Lords
Mental Health Act 1983 135, Mental Deficiency Act 1913 15(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Attorney General and Another v Great Eastern Railway Company HL 27-May-1880
An Act of Parliament authorised a company to construct a railway. Two other companies combined and contracted with the first to supply rolling stock. An injunction was brought to try to restrain this, saying that such a contract was not explicitly . .
Appeal From – Ward v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Epsom and St Helier NHS Trust CA 30-Jul-2003
The claimant sought damages for the circumstances of her having been taken into custody. A magistrate had issued a warrant to require her to be removed to a place of safety. The warrant named a social worker and doctor to accompany the officer. The . .
Cited – Bodden v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis 1990
A magistrate’s power to order the detention of someone who wilfully interrupted the proceedings of the court includes ‘all incidental powers necessary to enable the court to exercise the jurisdiction in a judicial manner’, and specifically in this . .
Cited – Winterwerp v The Netherlands ECHR 24-Oct-1979
A Dutch national detained in hospital complained that his detention had divested him of his capacity to administer his property, and thus there had been determination of his civil rights and obligations without the guarantee of a judicial procedure. . .

Cited by:
Appealed to – Ward v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Epsom and St Helier NHS Trust CA 30-Jul-2003
The claimant sought damages for the circumstances of her having been taken into custody. A magistrate had issued a warrant to require her to be removed to a place of safety. The warrant named a social worker and doctor to accompany the officer. The . .
Cited – Farstad Supply As v Enviroco Ltd SC 6-Apr-2011
The court was asked by the parties to a charterparty whether one of them is an ‘Affiliate’ of the charterer for the purposes of provisions in a charterparty by which both the owner and the charterer agreed to indemnify and hold each other harmless . .

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

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

Proceedings applying for an anti-social behaviour order, were properly civil proceedings, with civil standards of evidence, and the Human Rights Act provisions relating to criminal proceedings, were not applicable either. The section included acts which might be the subject of criminal charges, but might not, and orders in civil proceedings might themselves have consequences equal in severity to criminal proceedings. Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR said: ‘Many injunctions in civil proceedings operate severely upon those against whom they are ordered. In matrimonial proceedings a husband may be ordered to leave his home and not to have contact with his children. Such an order may be made as a consequence of violence which amounted to criminal conduct. But such an order is imposed not for the purpose of punishment but for protection of the family. This demonstrates that, when considering whether an order imposes a penalty or punishment, it is necessary to look beyond its consequence and to consider its purpose.’
Lord Phillips MR
Times 09-Mar-2001, [2001] 1 WLR 1084, [2001] EWCA Civ 281
Bailii
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 1, European Convention on Human Rights 6
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina v Manchester Crown Court, ex parte McCann and others QBD 22-Nov-2000
An application for an anti-social behaviour order against an individual was a civil, not a criminal proceeding. The standard of evidence required was on the balance of probability; the civil standard. Such proceedings were not subject to the . .
Appealed to – Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
Cited – Proprietary Articles Trade Association v Attorney-General for Canada PC 1931
The Board was asked how to identify whether an allegation amounted to a criminal one. Lord Atkin said: ‘It appears to their Lordships to be of little value to seek to confine crimes to a category of acts which by their very nature belong to the . .
Cited – Ex parte Alice Woodhall CA 8-May-1888
Extradition proceedings are in their nature criminal proceedings. Lindley LJ said: ‘Can we say that the application in the present case is not an application in a criminal cause or matter? I think that in substance it certainly is. Its whole object . .
Cited – Amand v Home Secretary and Minister of Defence of Royal Netherlands Government HL 1943
A Dutch serviceman who had been arrested for desertion and brought before a magistrate who ordered him to be handed over to the Dutch military authorities under the Allied Forces Act 1940. An application for habeas corpus was rejected by a . .
Distinguished – Customs and Excise Commissioners v City of London Magistrates’ Court QBD 2000
Access orders were sought by the Customs and Excise against banks to facilitate an investigation into the affairs of taxpayers and the issue was whether the resulting proceedings constituted ‘criminal proceedings’ within the meaning of section . .
Cited – Engel And Others v The Netherlands (1) ECHR 8-Jun-1976
engel_netherlandsECHR1976
The court was asked whether proceedings in a military court against soldiers for disciplinary offences involved criminal charges within the meaning of Article 6(1): ‘In this connection, it is first necessary to know whether the provision(s) defining . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Ozturk v Germany ECHR 21-Feb-1984
A minor infringement may be the subject of a criminal charge: ‘If the Contracting States were able at their discretion, by classifying an offence as ‘regulatory’ instead of criminal, to exclude the operation of the fundamental clauses of Articles 6 . .
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 – Lauko v Slovakia ECHR 2-Sep-1998
The applicant was fined under the domestic Minor Offences Act for accusing his neighbours, without justification, of causing a nuisance. The government relied on the modesty of the punishment capable of being imposed and the fact that the offence . .
Cited – Benham v United Kingdom ECHR 8-Feb-1995
Legal Aid was wrongfully refused where a tax or fine defaulter was liable to imprisonment, and the lack of a proper means enquiry, made imprisonment of poll tax defaulter unlawful. A poll tax defaulter had been wrongly committed to prison by . .

Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Moore, Kerr, Haroon CACD 5-Oct-2001
The applicants challenged the procedures under which, having been found unfit to plead by proceedings under the section, they were then found to have committed the acts forming the offences. The defendants were unable to put forward any case in . .
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 . .
Appeal from – Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
Cited – Port Regis School Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Gillingham and Shaftesbury Agricultural Society Admn 5-Apr-2006
Complaint was made that the decision of a planning committee had been biased because of the presence on the committee of two freemasons, and where the interests of another Lodge were affected.
Held: The freemasonry interests had been declared. . .

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

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

The appellant challenged by review the use of closed material first in the issue of a search warrant, and subsequently to justify the retention of materials removed during the search.
Held: The appeal failed. No express statutory justification existed, but equally there was no restriction on the use of such materials in what was an ex parte procedure.
The statutory scheme of PACE and the CJPA itself permits the relevant magistrate or court to have regard to material which cannot on public interest grounds be disclosed to a person affected by a warrant or order. It involves a purely ex parte process, directed to premises, rather than any particular person, and is designed to be operated speedily and simply, on information provided by a constable satisfying a magistrate that there are reasonable grounds for believing the matters stated in section 8(1). There is nothing in the statutory scheme which expressly restricts the information on which the magistrate may act. Parliament made no express provision for the information on which the warrant was sought to take any particular form or to be disclosed, even after the issue of the warrant, to any person affected.
Police had to be candid with the Magistrate, but a requirement that all such material be disclosed to the subject of the investigation would be inhibitive.
Lord Mance, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Hughes, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones
[2018] UKSC 1, [2018] Crim LR 672, [2018] Lloyd’s Rep FC 71, [2018] 2 All ER 303, [2018] AC 236, [2018] 2 WLR 357, [2018] 1 Cr App R 26, [2018] WLR(D) 35, UKSC 2016/0130
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 08112017 am Video, SC 08112017pm video
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 111 113(4), Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 59
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Haralambous v St Albans Crown Court and Another Admn 22-Apr-2016
This judicial review raised for express decision whether a person whose premises have been searched and whose property seized under a search warrant must have enough information grounding the warrant to judge its lawfulness and the retention of the . .
Cited – Carnduff v Inspector Rock and Chief Constable West Midlands Police CA 11-May-2001
The claimant was a police informer. Over several years he had given and been paid for information. He claimed that on one occasion he had given information which had led to the arrest of a major criminal, but the police denied that any information . .
Cited – Al Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others SC 13-Jul-2011
The claimant pursued a civil claim for damages, alleging complicity of the respondent in his torture whilst in the custody of foreign powers. The respondent sought that certain materials be available to the court alone and not to the claimant or the . .
Cited – 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 – 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 – 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 – Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis v Bangs Admn 3-Mar-2014
Where the police were objecting to the disclosure to a person affected of information relied upon before a magistrate to obtain a search and seizure warrant, the magistrates’ court was not functus officio, and any challenge to the withholding was an . .
Cited – British Sky Broadcasting Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 12-Mar-2014
The court was asked as to the powers of Magistrates hearing an application for a search warrant to receive excluded or special procedure material which had not been disclosed to the respondent. The court had overturned an order made by the district . .
Cited – Golfrate Property Management Ltd and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Crown Court At Southwark and Another Admn 25-Mar-2014
The claimants sought to have set aside search and seizure warrants obtained to further enquiries into suspected breaches of EU sanctions against ZANU-PF of Zimbabwe. They alleged non-disclosure and misrepresentation.
Held: A decision to claim . .
Cited – The Competition and Markets Authority v Concordia International Rx (UK) Ltd ChD 16-Nov-2017
The Authority had obtained and executed a search warrant against the defendant’s premises, but now sought to restrain disclosure of the materials upon which it had obtained that warrant, asserting Public Interest Immunity.
Held: An application . .
Cited – Entick v Carrington KBD 1765
The Property of Every Man is Sacred
The King’s Messengers entered the plaintiff’s house and seized his papers under a warrant issued by the Secretary of State, a government minister.
Held: The common law does not recognise interests of state as a justification for allowing what . .
Cited – Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex parte Rossminster Ltd HL 13-Dec-1979
The House considered the power of an officer of the Board of Inland Revenue to seize and remove materials found on premises which a warrant obtained on application to the Common Serjeant authorised him to enter and search; but where the source of . .
Cited – Conway v Rimmer HL 28-Feb-1968
Crown Privilege for Documents held by the Polie
The plaintiff probationary police constable had been investigated, prosecuted and cleared of an allegation of theft. He now claimed damages for malicious prosecution, and in the course of the action, sought disclosure of five documents, but these . .
Cited – Leander v Sweden ECHR 26-Mar-1987
Mr Leander had been refused employment at a museum located on a naval base, having been assessed as a security risk on the basis of information stored on a register maintained by State security services that had not been disclosed him. Mr Leander . .
Cited – Michalak v General Medical Council and Others SC 1-Nov-2017
Dr M had successfully challenged her dismissal and recovered damages for unfair dismissal and race discrimination. In the interim, Her employer HA had reported the dismissal to the respondent who continued their proceedings despite the decision in . .
Cited – Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, Ex parte T C Coombs and Co HL 1991
The House heard an application judicially to review a notice served by an inspector of taxes under section 20 of the 1970 Act, requiring T C Coombs and Co to deliver or make available for inspection documents in their possession relevant to the tax . .
Cited – Esbester v United Kingdom ECHR 2-Apr-1993
(Commission) The claimant had been refused employment within the Central Office of Information. He had been accepted subject to clearance, but that failed. He objected that he had been given no opportunity to object to the material oin which his . .
Cited – Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC 19-Jun-2013
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . .
Cited – Attorney General v Danhai Williams and others PC 12-May-1997
(Jamaica) Customs investigating officers on attended the appellant’s premises in the course of an investigation of fraudulent importation. The officers were met by a hostile crowd, and the claimant did not attend for interview as invited. A search . .
Cited – Home Office v Tariq SC 13-Jul-2011
(JUSTICE intervening) The claimant pursued Employment Tribunal proceedings against the Immigration Service when his security clearance was withdrawn. The Tribunal allowed the respondent to use a closed material procedure under which it was provided . .
Cited – Kadi v Commission ECFI 30-Sep-2010
ECFI Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban – Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 – . .
Cited – Regina v Davis HL 18-Jun-2008
The defendant had been tried for the murder of two men by shooting them at a party. He was identified as the murderer by three witnesses who had been permitted to give evidence anonymously, from behind screens, because they had refused, out of fear, . .
Cited – Kennedy v United Kingdom ECHR 18-May-2010
The claimant complained that after alleging unlawful interception of his communications, the hearing before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal was not attended by appropriate safeguards. He had been a campaigner against police abuse. His requests to . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF AN and AE (No 3) HL 10-Jun-2009
The applicants complained that they had been made subject to non-derogating control orders as suspected terrorists, but that the failure to inform them of the allegations or evidence against them was unfair and infringed their human rights. The . .
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 by:
Cited – The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) v Concordia International Rx (UK) Ltd CA 7-Aug-2018
The Authority had obtained a search warrant on an ex parte application. The defendant sought a rehearing, but the Authority sought to rely upon material for which it now asserted public interest immunity in material already used. At first instance, . .
Cited – The Competition and Markets Authority v Concordia International Rx (UK) Ltd ChD 8-Nov-2018
Whether to appoint special advocate. The Authority wished to pursue an investigation relying upon material for which it asserted Public Interest Immunity. . .
Cited – The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) v Concordia International Rx (UK) Ltd ChD 12-Dec-2018
Challenge to search warrants issued under the 1998 Act. . .
Cited – The Competition and Markets Authority v Concordia International Rx (UK) Ltd ChD 16-Jan-2019
Application to vary search warrant.
Held: Refused. . .
Cited – Belhaj and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another SC 4-Jul-2018
Challenge to decision not to prosecute senior Intelligence Service officials for alleged offences in connection with his unlawful rendition and mistreatment in Libya. The issue here was whether on the hearing of the application for judicial review, . .

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

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

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.226892

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

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

Updated: 28 July 2021; Ref: scu.239074

Rayne, Regina (on The Application of) v Leeds District Magistrates Court: Admn 13 Jul 2021

His Honour Judge Gosnell
[2021] EWHC 1964 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 22 July 2021; Ref: scu.665606

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

The Claimant aged 14 appeared before the Magistrates’ Court with a 20 year old Co-Defendant. The Magistrates declined jurisdiction in his case and the Claimant indicated Not Guilty pleas. The Magistrates concluded that it was in the interest of justice for the Claimant to be committed alongside the adult under Section 24(1)(b) of the Magistrates Courts Act 1990 and both Defendants were therefore committed under Section 6 (2) of the 1980 Act to the Crown Court. In the Crown Court the adult Defendant pleaded guilty and his case was accordingly adjourned for sentence. The Claimant pleaded not guilty and it was submitted on his behalf that as the effective link with the adult had been broken, his case should be remitted to the Youth Court for trial. The Crown Court Judge concluded he had no power to do so. He now sought judicial review.
Held: Youth Courts are a specialist subset of the Magistrates Court and a Court of Summary Jurisdiction constituted in accordance with section 4 of The Children and Young Persons Act 1933, as subsequently amended. They sit for the purpose of hearing any charge against a child or a young person or for the purpose of exercising any other jurisdiction conferred on the Youth Courts by or under any Act.
Sir Anthony May P said: ‘There are, I think in theory at least, two possible approaches. The first would be to identify a plain legislative oversight and read the legislation so as to supply an omitted provision which Parliament must have intended but failed by mistake to provide. The second possibility might be to resort to Section 3 of the The Human Rights Act 1998 so as to read the legislation in a way that is compatible with the convention. There is no suggestion in the present case that there might be a declaration of incompatibility, but for my part I think the Claimant’s advisors were right not to press the Human Rights Act route. An over ingenious human rights lawyer might make something of a case for an infringement here of Article 6, or conceivably Article 8, of the European Convention on Human Rights, but the reality is the Claimant would get a fair trial in the Crown Court, and that is accepted. It is only that it would be strongly preferable for policy reasons if he were in the Youth Court’.
Sir Anthony May P QBD, Langstaff J
[2011] EWHC 2326 (Admin), [2012] Crim LR 160, [2012] ACD 8, [2012] 1 WLR 2786, [2012] 1 Cr App R 13, (2011) 175 JP 467
Bailii
Magistrates Courts Act 1990 24(1)(b), Magistrates Courts Act 1980 6(2), Children and Young Persons Act 1933 4
England and Wales
Cited by:
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.
Updated: 21 July 2021; Ref: scu.443636

London Borough of Bromley v Bromley Magistrates Court: Admn 11 Feb 2011

Mitting, David JJ
[2011] EWHC 432 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 21 July 2021; Ref: scu.442554

Guraj, Regina v: SC 14 Dec 2016

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

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

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

Thomas v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 2 Dec 2015

Appeal by case stated against bail refusal.
Lloyd Jones LJ, Collins J
[2015] EWHC 4079 (Admin)
Bailii
Protection from Harassment Act 1997, Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 113
England and Wales

Updated: 18 July 2021; Ref: scu.564432

Brookes v Retail Credit Cards Ltd: QBD 1986

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

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

Visvaratnam v Brent Magistrates’ Court: Admn 28 Oct 2009

Application by the claimant, for judicial review to challenge a decision of the Brent Magistrates’ Court to adjourn his trial upon a charge of driving whilst unfit through drugs, on the application of the prosecution.
[2009] EWHC 3017 (Admin), (2010) 174 JP 61
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 16 July 2021; Ref: scu.408844

Regina v Hughes: 1879

Baron Huddleston said that: ‘objections and defects in the form of procuring the appearance of a party charged will be cured by appearance.’
Hawkins J said: ‘The information, which is in the nature of an indictment, of necessity precedes the process; and it is only after the information is laid, that the question as to the particular form and nature of the process can properly arise. Process is not essential to the jurisdiction of the justices to hear and adjudicate. It is but the proceeding adopted to compel the appearance of the accused to answer the information already duly laid, without which no hearing in the nature of a trial could take place (unless under special statutory enactment).’
Baron Huddleston, Hawkins J
(1879) 4 QBD 614
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – North Wales Police v Anglesey Justices CA 16-Jul-2008
A dog bit a constable. The defendant said that the police had wrongly begun proceedings as an information, rather than by way of a complaint, and that they were a nullity.
Held: Rule 2.1 of the 1981 Rules is expressed in terms which show that . .
Approved – 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 . .

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

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

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

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

Lloyd v Young: Admn 1963

There had been doubt on the face of the summons as to the date of the laying of the information.
Held: The court concluded on the evidence that the Justices were entitled to dismiss the information because of the doubts of the date.
[1963] Crim LR 703
England and Wales
Cited by:
Applied – Atkinson v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 12-May-2004
The court considered how to apply the time limits in the section. There was a system for automatic electronic communication between the police and the court office. The six month time limit expired on the 16th December. The documents served on the . .
Mentioned – 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 . .

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

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

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

Updated: 22 June 2021; Ref: scu.546411

Balogun v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 12 Mar 2010

The defendant appealed by case stated against a decision to adjourn his trial part heard to allow attendance of a prosecution witness.
Leveson LJ, Cranston J
[2010] EWHC 799 (Admin), [2010] 1 WLR 1915
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 21 June 2021; Ref: scu.410557

Thornton v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 28 Jan 2010

The defendants appealed by way of case stated against sentence.
Aikens LJ, Openshaw J
[2010] EWHC 346 (Admin)
Bailii
Public Order Act 1996
England and Wales

Updated: 20 June 2021; Ref: scu.401859

McDonagh’s (Rosaleen Angela) Application: QBNI 24 Jan 2019

Power of a Public Prosecutor to issue a summons following a complaint to the Magistrates’ Court pursuant to Section 93 of the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2015.
[2019] NIQB 5
Bailii
Northern Ireland

Updated: 14 June 2021; Ref: scu.636814

Guardian News and Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court and Another: CA 25 Oct 2011

The claimant newspaper sought to appeal against a refusal by the respondent to disclose papers filed in a case before it. The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal.
Held: Under the 1981 Act no appeal would lie if the matter was a criminal one. The application was made after what was clearly a criminal matter, but the claimant argued that the application itself was a civil one. The authorities were confusing and the law unclear. The court found that the application though made in criminal proceedings, itself was wholly collateral to those extradition proceedings. The Court of Appeal did therefore have jurisdiction: ‘any sort of final coherence in relation to the scope and effect of section 18(1)(a) can only be provided by the Supreme Court, but I believe that, consistently with the spirit of the approach in The Great Peace [2003] QB 679, the best way of applying the ‘rather tangled’ jurisprudence developed over the past thirty-five years, and ensuring maximum coherence (or maybe it is more realistic to say, minimum incoherence) is to hold that we have jurisdiction to hear the appeal.’ In view of the arguments raised, leave was granted.
Lord Neuberger MR, Jackson, Aikens LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 1188, [2012] EMLR 11, [2012] CP Rep 5, [2011] 1 WLR 3253
Bailii
Supreme Court Act 1981 18(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Amand v Home Secretary and Minister of Defence of Royal Netherlands Government HL 1943
The refusal of an application for habeas corpus by a person committed to prison with a view to extradition was a decision in a ‘criminal cause or matter.’
Viscount Simon LC said said that the: ‘distinction between cases of habeas corpus in a . .
Appeal from – Guardian News and Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court Admn 21-Dec-2010
The claimant appealed against a refusal by the magistrate to allow access to documents filed during proceedings when the court felt that all relevant matters had been discussed openly and in detail in court.
Held: The appeal failed, and the . .
Cited – United States of America, Regina (on the Application of) v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court Admn 6-Sep-2006
The defendant a serving prisoner sought an adjournment of his extradition to a time closer to the end of the sentence he was to serve in England.
Held: The court had sympathy with the argument that where the district judge is being invited to . .
Doubted – Regina v Southampton Justices ex parte Green CA 1976
The court considered whether as the Court of Appeal, it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the Divisional Court’s refusal to quash an order estreating a recognisance.
Held: It did. Lord Denning MR said that ‘the matter is criminal’ if . .
Cited – Carr v Atkins CA 1987
The police had applied to a judge for an order under the 1984 Act requiring the applicant, a suspect in a fraud investigation, to produce documents falling within the definition of ‘special procedure documents’ under the Act. The applicants sought . .
Cited – In re Smalley HL 1985
Challenge by a surety to an estreatment of his recognizance was not a matter relating to a trial on indictment for the purpose of section 29(3) because it did not affect the conduct of the trial. A sensible legislative purpose can be seen for . .
Cited – Regina v Sheffield Crown Court ex parte Brownlow CA 1980
Two police officers were being brought to trial, charged with assault occasioning bodily harm. They applied to the trial judge for an order directing the prosecution to inform the defence whether any members of the jury panel had criminal . .
Cited – Regina v Lambeth Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate ex parte McComb CA 1983
The Court found that it had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the Divisional Court’s upholding of a decision that the Director of Public Prosecutions could freely remove exhibits, lodged in the Crown Court in criminal proceedings against . .
Cited – Regina v Waterfield QBD 1975
The defendant was convicted of importing pornographic films and magazines. One ground of appeal was that the proceedings were a nullity because the press and public had been excluded from the court room during the showing of the films.
Held: . .
Cited – A v Independent News and Media Ltd and Others CA 31-Mar-2010
a_independentCA2010
The newspapers sought leave to report proceedings before the Court of Protection in connection with a patient unable to manage his own affairs. The patient retained a possible capacity to work as a professional musician. The family wanted the . .
Cited – Day v Grant (Note) CA 1985
(January 1985) The court must look to the underlying nature of the proceedings in which the order was made and against which an appeal was sought to see to which court an appeal lay. ‘So Lord Wright was saying that you look not at the particular . .
Cited – Howell and Others, Regina v CACD 28-Feb-2003
The defendants appealed against convictions for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. They had been police officers.
An application was made for the disclosure of the skeleton arguments read by the court, Judge LJ said: ‘Subject to . .
Cited – Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris (International) Ltd CA 14-Oct-2002
The parties contracted for the hire of a ship. They were each under a mistaken impression as to its position, and a penalty became payable. The hirer claimed that the equitable doctrine of mutual mistake should forgive him liability.
Held: . .
Cited – United States Government v Montgomery and Another HL 6-Feb-2001
An English court had power to make a restraining order against the disposal of assets pending an application for confiscation pursuant to a US order. This applied even if the US original judgment predated the date on which the US was added to the . .

Cited by:
Cited – Osborn v The Parole Board SC 9-Oct-2013
Three prisoners raised questions as to the circumstances in which the Parole Board is required to hold an oral hearing before making an adverse decision. One of the appeals (Osborn) concerned a determinate sentence prisoner who was released on . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 March 2021; Ref: scu.447494

Regina v Birkenhead Magistrates’ Court ex parte Margaret Theresa Lewis: Admn 8 Jul 1998

[1998] EWHC Admin 724
Bailii

Updated: 26 December 2020; Ref: scu.138845

Regina v Barnet Magistrates’ Court ex parte Wood: 1993

During the committal proceedings, the defendant had behaved in a disruptive fashion, and the clerk failed to remind him fully of his rights to call evidence.
Held: The failure was a procedural irregularity which affected what happened thereafter, even though it caused no discernible prejudice. The case was remitted to the crown court to decide whether the failure was so fundamental as to have caused unfairness.
References: [1993] CLR 78
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

Cited – Brizzalari v Regina CACD 19-Feb-2004
In closing, prosecuting counsel had suggested that during the trial two matters had been mentioned by the defence which had not been mentioned earlier, and that the jury should feel free to draw proper inferences under the 1984 Act from that . .
(Times 03-Mar-04, [2004] EWCA Crim 310, )

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.194272

Regina v Carey: 1983

Magistrates had failed to sign the committal papers when sending the case to the crown court.
Held: Applying Hall, the committal remained effective.
References: [1983] 76 Cr App R 152
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

Cited – Brizzalari v Regina CACD 19-Feb-2004
In closing, prosecuting counsel had suggested that during the trial two matters had been mentioned by the defence which had not been mentioned earlier, and that the jury should feel free to draw proper inferences under the 1984 Act from that . .
(Times 03-Mar-04, [2004] EWCA Crim 310, )
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 . .
(, [2006] EWHC 121 (Admin))

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.194271

Regina v West Sussex Quarter Sessions, ex parte Albert and Maud Johnson Trust: CA 1973

References: [1973] CLY 2097, [1973] 3 All ER 289
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

Cited – Al-Mehdawi v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 23-Nov-1989
The applicant, a student had overstayed his leave. Through his solicitor’s negligence, he lost his appeal against deportation. He sought judicial review of that decision.
Held: Judgment obtained in a party’s absence due entirely to the fault . .
([1989] 3 WLR 1294, [1989] 3 All ER 843, [1990] 1 AC 876, , [1989] UKHL 7)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.193435

Regina (Commissioners of Customs and Excise) v Canterbury Crown Court and Another: QBD 14 Nov 2002

The magistrates court had received a request to depose witnesses to provide evidence for the Dutch Court. The Commissioners opposed an order made by a judge of the Crown Court that no depositions should be taken without the consent of the Crown Court.
Held: Though these proceedings were now nugatory, since the foreign proceedings had been concluded, the Court nevertheless declared that the Crow Court had acted without jurisdiction. The Magistrates Court and the Commissioner had been acting as an agent of the Secretary of State for the Home department. The Crown Court judge was concerned at achieving fairness in his own court only.
References: Times 06-Dec-2002
Judges: Laws LJ, Field J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.178349

Brown v Nicholson; 17 Nov 1858

References: [1858] EngR 1141, (1858) 5 CB NS 468, (1858) 144 ER 190
Links: Commonlii
Ratio: A borough may be a ‘town corporate’ within the licensing act, 9 G 4, c. 61, s. 1, though it has no separate court of Quarter Sessions. – A licence was granted by the justices of the borough of M, – a place having a separate commission of the peace, but no separate court of Quarter Sessions, – at a licensing meeting hold on the 7th of September, which had been duly appointed by them as they had always been accustomed to do : – Held, that the licence so granted was valid, notwithstanding that tbe justices for the county (who had concurrerit jurisdiction in M.) had previously appointed a licensing-meeting for the 8th.

Last Update: 10-Aug-16
Ref: 289612

45 Ass Pl 3; 3 Jan 1220

References: [1220] EngR 548, (1220-1623) Jenk 40, (1220) 145 ER 29 (D)
Links: Commonlii
Ratio:An assize is brought before A and B justices, between C and D. A. dies, C, is associated to B. to take this assise, the assise can’t proceed ; for C. can’t be a judge and party in his own cause, and he can’t be summoned and severed ; for this must be awarded by him and the other justice, and he can’t sever himself ; and B can’t proceed alone, for two are appointed to take this assise.

Last Update: 03-Jul-16
Ref: 461460

Collier v Hicks; 7 Jun 1831

References: (1831) 2 B & Ad 663, [1831] EngR 686, (1831) 109 ER 1290
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Lord Tenterden CJ
Trespass for assaulting, and turning plaintiff out of a police office. Plea, that two of the defendants, being justices of the peace, were assembled in a police office to adjudicate upon an information against AB for an offence against a penal statute, and were proceeding to hear and determine the same, when the plaintiff (being an attorney) entered the police office with the informer, not as his friend or as a spectator, but for the avowed purpose of acting as his attorney and advocate touching the information ; and as such attorney and advocate, without the leave, and against the will, of the justices, was taking notes of the evidence of a witness then under examination before them, touching the matter of the said information, and was acting and taking a part in the proceedings as an attorney or advocate on behalf of the informer; that the above two defendants stated to the plaintiff, that it was not their practice to suffer any person to appear and take part in any proceedings before them as an attorney or advocate, and requested him to desist from so doing; and although they were willing to permit the plaintiff to remain in the police office as one of the public, yet that he would not desist from taking a part in the proceedings as such attorney or advocate, but asserted his right to be present, and to take such part, and to act as such attorney and advocate for the informer; and unlawfully, and against the will of the justices, continued in the police office, taking part and acting as aforesaid, in contempt of the justices ; whereupon, by order of the above two defendants, the other defendants turned the plaintiff out of the office :
Held: on demurrer, that this was a good plea, inasmuch as no person has by law a right to act as an advocate on the trial of an information before justices of the peace, without their permission.
Lord Tenterden CJ said: ‘Any person, whether he be a professional man or not, may attend as a friend of either party, may take notes, may quietly make suggestions, and give advice; but no one can demand to take part in the proceedings as an advocate, contrary to the regulations of the court as settled by the discretion of the Justices.’
This case is cited by:

Cited – McKenzie -v- McKenzie CA ([1971] P 33, [1970] 3 WLR 472, CAT 679/1991)
Mr McKenzie was a litigant in person who wished to be assisted by a young Australian barrister, gratuitously, in the conduct of his case by sitting beside the husband in Court and prompting him. The hearing was in open Court . The friend’s conduct . .
Cited – O and others (Children); In re O (Children), In re W-R (a Child), In re W (Children) CA (Bailii, [2005] EWCA Civ 759, Times 27-Jun-05)
In each case litigants in person had sought to be allowed to have the assistance and services of a Mackenzie friend in children cases. In one case, the court had not allowed confidential documents to be disclosed to the friend.
Held: The . .
Cited – Regina -v- Bow County Court Ex parte Pelling QBD (Times 08-Mar-99, Bailii, [1999] EWHC Admin 181)
Mr Pelling sought to act as a McKenzie friend. On being refused he sought judicial review of he decision to exclude him.
Held: Review was refused. A McKenzie friend has himself no locus to challenge a decision by a county court judge not to . .

Practice Direction (Justices: Clerk to Court); 2 Oct 2000

References: [2000] 4 All ER 895, [2000] 1 WLR 1886
Coram: Lord Woolf LCJ
Lord Woolf gave guidance as to the duties of the clerk to the magistrates as to the manner of assistance to be provided to them. He set out that it was the responsibility of the legal adviser to provide the justices with any advice they might require properly to perform their functions whether or not the justices had requested that advice, on questions of law; questions of mixed law and fact; matters of practice and procedure; the range of penalties available; any relevant decisions of the superior courts or other guidelines; other issues relevant to the matter before the court; and the appropriate decision-making structure to be applied in any given case. In addition to advising the justices it was his responsibility to assist the court, where appropriate, as to the formulation of reasons and the recording of those reasons. The Practice Direction then goes on to note (paragraph 4) that a justice’s clerk or legal adviser must not play any part in making findings of fact. It adds that he may assist the bench by reminding him of the evidence, using any notes of the proceedings for this purpose. The practice direction is clear that if the justice’s clerk gives any advice to a bench he should give the parties or advocates an opportunity of repeating any relevant submissions prior to that advice being given. If it is given in private he should report that advice to the parties, and the advice should be regarded as provisional and clearly stated to be so. The adviser should subsequently repeat the substance of that advice in open court and give the parties an opportunity to make any representations they wish on that provisional advice. The legal adviser should then state in open court whether the provisional advice is confirmed or, if it is varied, the nature of the variation.
This case is cited by:

Cited – Nunn -v- Suffolk Constabulary and Another Admn (Bailii, [2012] EWHC 1186 (Admin))
The claimant had been convicted of murder and his appeal had failed. He now sought disclosure if the forensic material held by the police to his own legal team.
Held: Permission to apply for review was granted, but the claim failed. ‘It is . .