The appellant sought judicial review of the magistrates’ decision to convict him of the two offences of causing racially aggravated fear or provocation of violence, contrary to section 31(1)(a) of the 1998 Act, and of causing fear or provocation of violence, contrary to section 4 of the 1986 Act. He said that to convict him of both on the same facts was irrational and disproportionate and was also the product of a fixed and inflexible policy rigidly applied and, for these reasons, the convictions were unlawful.
Held: The appeal succeeded. A court given a discretion must not fetter it, and must act according to its perception of the merits of the case before it, and: ‘This claimant stands convicted twice for a single wrong. That is unfair and disproportionate. It is not a matter of being punished twice. The double conviction is of itself unfair. It must be basic to our system of criminal justice that a person’s criminal record should reflect what he has done, no more and no less. That is fair and proportionate. To convict him twice for a single wrong offends this basic rule. These two offences were charged as alternatives but they have been treated as if they were cumulative.’
Laws LJ, Hickinbottom J
[2013] EWHC 547 (Admin)
Bailii
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 3191)(a), Public Order Act 1986 4
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Manchester Coroner, ex parte Tal 1985
The court asked whether the Divisional Court was bound by previous decisions of that court, and answered: ‘we find it difficult to imagine that a single judge exercising this (supervisory) jurisdiction (of the High Court) would ever depart from a . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutors v Gane Admn 1991
The defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol and being in charge of a vehicle with excess alcohol. It was clear that on the facts the former charge included the latter. The magistrates found the facts proved but convicted only on the . .
Cited – Crown Prosecution Service, Regina (on the Application of) v Blaydon Youth Court Admn 6-Oct-2004
The defendant had been charged with a simple offence under the Public Order Act and also with the racially aggravated offence. The magistrates refused to hear them together.
Held: This was wrong. Keene LJ said: ‘For the prosecutor, Mr Moran . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Leading Case
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.472487
