swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Magistrates - From: 1960 To: 1969
This page lists 12 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Regina v Nottingham Justice, ex parte Brown [1960] 1 WLR 1315
1960
Magistrates
Proceedings which were begun incorrectly by the laying of an information rather than a complaint as required were a nullity.
1 Citers
Regina v Barnsley Licensing Justices, Ex parte Barnsley and District Licensed Victuallers' Association [1960] 2 QB 167
1960
Devlin J
Natural Justice, Magistrates
Even though a person may in good faith believe that he was acting impartially, his mind may unconsciously be affected by a bias. Devlin LJ said: "Bias is or may be an unconscious thing and a man may honestly say that he was not actually biased and did not allow his interest to affect his mind, although, nevertheless, he may have allowed it unconsciously to do so."
1 Citers
Regina v Liverpool Justices ex parte Roberts [1960] 1 WLR 587
1960
QBD
Lord Parker CJ, Ashworth Salmon JJ
Magistrates, Costs
The defendant challenged a conviction where the magistrates had not heard from him. The magistrates were not reprsented at the appeal. Held: The appela was successful, but the court declined to award costs against the magistrates: "So far as costs against the justices are concerned, it has been the practice not to grant costs against justices or tribunals merely because they have made a mistake in law but only if they have acted improperly, that is to say, perversely or with some disregard for the elementary principles which every court ought to obey, and even then only if it was a flagrant instance." It is the general practice not to award costs against a party who did not appear to resist an application of this sort unless, for instance, he had materially contributed to the error giving rise to the application.
1 Citers
Hosier v Goodall [1962] 2 QB 40; [1962] 1 All ER 30; [1962] WLR 157
1962
QBD
Road Traffic, Magistrates
A notice of intended prosecution was sent to the defendant in connection with an allegation of driving without due care and attention. When the matter came before the court, the defendant argued that the prosecution had failed to meet the requirements of section 241. Following a car acident the defendant had been unconscious in hospital. Attempts to serve him with papers at hospital had failed, and a notice was sent by registered letter to his home. His wife received it, but she did not give it to him despite his having recovered sufficiently to have read it. The prosecutor appealed against a finding that he had not been served. Held: The appeal succeeded. There had been good service since the wife was deemed to be authorised for this purpose.
1 Citers
Lloyd v Young; Admn 1963 - [1963] Crim LR 703
Regina v Essex Justices ex parte Final [1963] 2 QB 816
1963
QBD
Magistrates
Magistrates had announced a case to be proved, but had then been persuaded to reconsider their verdict. Held: The magistrates became functus officio, and had no remaining jurisdiction to substitute a different verdict, either way.
1 Citers
Regina v West [1964] QB 15
1964
Magistrates, Criminal Practice
The justices had purported to hear and determine an information of accessory after the fact of a larceny. Held: The action was a nullity; and thus the defendant's acquittal was also a nullity. The justices had therefore not exhausted their jurisdiction and had not barred themselves from acting in their other and quite distinct capacity of examining magistrates. Thus the committal of the defendant to stand trial at quarter sessions was a valid committal.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Regina v Aylesbury Justices, Ex parte Wisbey [1965] 1 All ER 602
1965
Magistrates
If a defendant considers that the particulars provided in an information are insufficient the court has the power, at any time after the charge has been preferred, to require the prosecution to furnish him with better and more complete particulars.
1 Citers
Webb v Leadbetter [1966] 1 WLR 245
1966
QBD
Lord Parker CJ, Winn LJ and Sachs J
Criminal Practice, Magistrates
One of two witnesses whom the prosecution desired to call at the hearing of an information had not arrived. The available witness was called. The prosecution case closed. The defendant gave evidence and his case closed. The justices had retired to consider their decision when they were informed that the second prosecution witness, whose car had broken down, had arrived. They returned to court and allowed the prosecution to call him. His evidence corroborated that of the first prosecution witness. The defendant was convicted. Held: Although justices have a discretion to allow further evidence to be called in particular circumstances, the manner of exercise depends on the stage of the case. In the absence of very special circumstances, they should not allow evidence to be called after they have retired, and that such circumstances being absent, the further evidence for the prosecution had been wrongly admitted, and the appeal would be allowed and the conviction quashed.
Lord Parker CJ: "It is, of course, quite clear under our law that he who affirms must prove. Therefore strictly once the prosecution have closed their case there will be no opportunity for them to call further evidence, subject of course to evidence in rebuttal, with which we are not concerned. Nevertheless, it does seem to me that there must always be some residuary discretion of the court to allow, in particular circumstances, evidence to be called, but the manner in which that discretion is exercised must depend on the stage of the case. When one turns to indictable offences it is perfectly clear that it has become now an established rule of law that no evidence can be called after the summing up and the judge, who in his discretion sought to exercise his discretion by allowing evidence to be called at that stage, would be acting entirely wrongly and the conviction would be quashed.
The same considerations do not wholly apply in the Magistrates' Court but, nevertheless, as a general rule and in the absence of some special circumstances it would certainly be wholly wrong for the justices to purport to exercise a discretion to allow evidence to be called once they have retired and, indeed, probably after the defence had closed their case. At an earlier stage it may well be proper to exercise the discretion in favour of allowing the witness to be called and indeed that was suggested in the decision of this court in Saunders v Johns."
"So far as this case is concerned I am quite satisfied that there was only one way in which any residuary discretion in the justices could have been exercised, the prosecution having closed their case, the defence having closed their case and they having retired. In those circumstances, I think there is no option but to quash this conviction."
Winn LJ: "This is not one of those cases in which there were the very special circumstances to which Lord Parker CJ has referred."
1 Citers
Regina v Hove Justices ex-parte Donne [1967] 2 All ER 1253
1967
Magistrates
1 Citers
Regina v Hastings Licensing Justices ex parte Lovibond [1968] 1 WLR 735; [1968] 2 All ER 270
1968
QBD
Lord Parker CJ
Magistrates, Costs
The court granted an order of certiorari to quash a decision of licensing justices. The magistrates had not resisted the appeal, but commercial rivals of the licensee had persisted with their objection. Held: "it is very rare that this court makes any award in regard to costs on an application for one of the prerogative orders, unless the other party has appeared and contested the application. " In this case however an order was made against the respondents up to the point where they had ceased opposition.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Atkinson v Government of the United States [1971] AC 197; [1969] 3 All ER 1317
1969
HL
Lord Reid, Lord Upjohn
Extradition, Natural Justice, Magistrates
The House heard an appeal from the magistrates' refusal to commit the accused in the course of extradition proceedings. Held: There is no abuse of process jurisdiction in extradition proceedings. There is no power to state a case in relation to committal proceedings.
Lord Reid said: "It is now well recognised that the court has power to expand procedure laid down by statute if that is necessary to prevent infringement of natural justice and is not plainly contrary to the intention of Parliament. There can be cases where it would clearly be contrary to natural justice to surrender a man although there is sufficient evidence to justify committal. Extradition may be either because the man is accused of an extradition crime or because he has been convicted in the foreign country of an extradition crime. It is not unknown for convictions to be obtained in a few foreign countries by improper means, and it would be intolerable if a man so convicted had to be surrendered. Parliament can never have so intended when the Act of 1980 was passed. But the Act does provide a safeguard. The Secretary of State always has power to refuse to surrender a man committed to prison by the magistrate. It appears to me that Parliament must have intended the Secretary of State to use that power whenever in his view it would be wrong, unjust or oppressive to surrender the man."
Lord Upjohn said: "Of course, in a most literal sense, in making an order of committal the magistrates are making a judicial order or determination; it is a judicial proceeding and it is an order or determination in the sense that in the result the accused then stands his trial . . But here there is no judicial determination of the rights of the parties in that sense; no 'rights' are decided. All that the committing magistrates have 'decided' or 'determined' is that there is prima facie case which should go before the adjudicating tribunal; they are acting judicially but they are not truly an adjudicating body at this stage, they are merely carrying out a step in the complex of proceedings which by our law precedes the trial of an indictable offence."
Extradition Act 1980
1 Citers