(British Virgin Islands) The Board considered a case about a failure to comply with the statutory provisions for the empanelling of jurors to try a criminal case. Lord Mance said: ‘The modern tendency is no longer to seek to identify or distinguish between mandatory and directory acts, but the Board’s judgment in the Montreal Street Railway case [1917] AC 170 underlines the need for careful examination of the relevant legislation, to ascertain the purpose of statutory procedures for the empanelling of an array and whether an intention should be attributed to the legislature that non-compliance with such procedures should render a jury trial a nullity, irrespective whether it may have occasioned potential unfairness or prejudice.’
Citations:
[2008] UKPC 29
Links:
Citing:
Cited – The Montreal Street Railway Company and Another v Roch Normandin PC 23-Jan-1917
(Quebec) . .
Cited by:
Cited – TTM v London Borough of Hackney and Others CA 14-Jan-2011
The claimant had been found to have been wrongfully detained under section 3. He appealed against rejection of his claim for judicial review and for damages. The court found that his detention was lawful until declared otherwise. He argued that the . .
Cited – TTM v London Borough of Hackney and Others CA 14-Jan-2011
The claimant had been found to have been wrongfully detained under section 3. He appealed against rejection of his claim for judicial review and for damages. The court found that his detention was lawful until declared otherwise. He argued that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Commonwealth, Criminal Practice
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.267721
