lawrence_fscPC2009
(Jamaica) The appellant challenged a fixed penalty notice issued in respect of a financial services allegation, saying that it had been made without him having been allowed opportunity to be heard by an impartial tribunal.
Held: Actions under the fixed penalty notice procedure had been properly validated. The notice did not require a finding of guilt, but only that the defendant was a person ‘who it has reason to believe has committed an offence’ to which the section relates.
Therefore: ‘whatever the precise form of the notice, there was no question of the determination of the issue whether the appellant was guilty of an offence before the notice was given. There was no issue upon which the appellant was entitled to be heard or to make representations before the notice was given. It follows that there was no breach of natural justice or of the principle that a defendant to criminal or civil proceedings is entitled to a fair hearing. If the defendant wanted to be heard on the question whether he was guilty of the offence alleged, the appropriate course was for him to wait to be prosecuted and to present his defence. He was not deprived of that opportunity by the giving of the notice.’ and ‘the Board sees nothing unlawful in the decision to give the notice or in the giving of the notice. He had no right to be heard before the notice was given.’
Lord Saville, Lord Collins, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Sir Henry Brooke
[2009] UKPC 49
Bailii
Citing:
Cited – McCutcheon v David MacBrayne Ltd HL 21-Jan-1964
The appellant had asked his brother-in-law to have a car shipped from Islay to the mainland. The appellant had personally consigned goods on four previous occasions. On three of them he was acting on behalf of his employer; on the other occasion he . .
Cited – Lloyd v McMahon HL 12-Mar-1987
The district auditor had issued a certificate under the 1982 Act surcharging the appellant councillors in the sum of 106,103, pounds being the amount of a loss incurred or deficiency caused, as the auditor found, by their wilful misconduct.
Cited – Yew Bon Tew v Kenderaan Bas Mara PC 7-Oct-1982
(Malaysia) In 1972 the appellants were injured by the respondent’s bus. At that time the local limitation period was 12 months. In 1974 the limitation period became three years. The appellants issued a writ in 1975. To succeed they would have to sue . .
Cited – Re McCutcheon and City of Toronto 1983
(Ontario High Court of Justice) The appellant had been given a parking ticket. She could pay a penalty, in which event there would be no further proceedings against her, but if she did not, she would be liable to conviction and payment of a fine. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Commonwealth, Financial Services, Natural Justice
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.384072
