Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

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: 1970 To: 1979

This page lists 17 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Dewing v Cummings [1971] RTR 295
1971


Magistrates

1 Citers


 
Regina v Southampton Justices, ex parte Briggs [1972] 1 WLR 277
1972
QBD
Lord Widgery CJ, Ashworth and Griffiths JJ
Magistrates
Lord Widgery CJ, with whom Ashworth and Griffiths JJ agreed, stated that, in determining a request by a defendant to withdraw consent to summary jurisdiction, the justices should exercise their jurisdiction "on how they see the broad justice of the whole situation." and
"So the true position when the matter eventually came back to the justices was that they did have power to allow the applicant to withdraw his consent to summary trial, and if he asks, as he did, to withdraw his consent, then the justices were required to exercise their discretion whether they would allow him to do so or not. The mischief in the present case is that they did not exercise a discretion at all because they believed that they had no discretion to exercise.
I am satisfied they were wrong in adopting the view that they had no discretion to exercise, and I would order mandamus to go directing them to hear the applicant's request to withdraw his consent to summary trial, and to determine that request in their discretion. We have been pressed by Mr. Smyth to give some kind of indication or guidelines as to how such a discretion should be exercised. For my part, I think it would be dangerous, and I decline to give any such direction. I think it suffices to tell the justices that, as in all their undertakings, they must endeavour to do justice, and whether or not they exercise their discretion in favour of the applicant's request will depend on how they see the broad justice of the whole situation."
In this case however, they refused themselves to exercise the discretion on behalf of the justices who failed to exercise it.
Lord Widgery CJ said: "So the true position when the matter eventually came back to the justices was that they did have power to allow the applicant to withdraw his consent to summary trial, and if he asks, as he did, to withdraw his consent, then the justices were required to exercise their discretion whether they would allow him to do so or not. The mischief in the present case is that they did not exercise a discretion at all because they believed that they had no discretion to exercise.
I am satisfied they were wrong in adopting the view that they had no discretion to exercise, and I would order mandamus to go directing them to hear the applicant's request to withdraw his consent to summary trial, and to determine that request in their discretion. We have been pressed by Mr. Smyth to give some kind of indication or guidelines as to how such a discretion should be exercised. For my part, I think it would be dangerous, and I decline to give any such direction. I think it suffices to tell the justices that, as in all their undertakings, they must endeavour to do justice, and whether or not they exercise their discretion in favour of the applicant's request will depend on how they see the broad justice of the whole situation."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Doble v David Grieg Ltd [1972] All ER 195
1972

Forbes J
Magistrates

1 Citers


 
Regina v West Sussex Quarter Sessions, ex parte Albert and Maud Johnson Trust [1973] CLY 2097; [1973] 3 All ER 289
1973
CA

Magistrates

1 Citers


 
Regina v Altrincham Justices, ex parte Pennington [1975] QB 549
1975
QBD

Magistrates
A magistrate who knows that there may be an objection to his sitting should himself take the initiative and withdraw, or raise the issue with the parties.

 
Regina v Brentford Justices ex parte Catlin [1975] QB 455
1975


Magistrates
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 proceedings and for getting him before the Court.
1 Citers


 
Raymond Lyons and Co Ltd v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1975] 1 All ER 335; [1975] QB 321
1975
QBD
Lord Widgery CJ
Police, Magistrates
A suspected thief had left a valuable ring with the claimant jewellers for valuation. They reported the matter to the police and handed the ring to them. The suspected thief never reappeared, and no-one claiming to be the true owner emerged. The police did not return the ring to the jewellers, who applied to the Magistrates Court under the 1897 Act. The magistrates declined to order the police to return the ring, on the ground that the jewellers were not the owners of it. Held: The appeal failed. The procedure under the 1897 Act is suitable only for ‘straightforward, simple cases where there is no difficulty of law and the matter is clear’. He added: ‘I would discourage them from attempting to use the procedure of the Act of 1897 in cases which involve a real issue of law or any real difficulty in determining whether a particular person is or is not the owner’. Where there was a real issue of law or any real difficulty in determining whether a particular person was or was not the owner, a claim should be brought in the civil courts.
Police (Property) Act 1897 1
1 Citers



 
 Regina v Newham Justices, ex parte Hunt etc; CA 1976 - [1976] 1 All ER 839; [1976] 1 WLR 420
 
Michael v Gowland [1977] 1 WLR 296
1977


Magistrates
The case stated procedure has a strict requirement that it be begun within 21 days. There is no discretion to extend that time limit.
1 Citers


 
Regina v Leicester Justices, Ex parte Watchorn (1978) JPN 375
1978


Magistrates

1 Citers


 
Regina v Rochford Justices ex parte Buck [1978] 68 Cr App R 114
1978

Lord Widgery CJ
Magistrates
The court considered the correctness of the Divisional Court interfering in interlocutory orders in magistrates court proceedings: "The obligation of this Court to keep out of the way until the magistrate has finished his determination seems to me to be a principle properly to be applied both to summary trial and to committal proceedings."
1 Citers


 
Regina v Chester Justices ex parte Kenneth Smith (1978) 67 Cr App R 133
1978
QBD

Police, Magistrates
The wife of an offender applied for an order of mandamus requiring Magistrates to determine an application under s.1 of the 1897 Act for delivery to her of a car which the Crown Court had held was used in an offence and then had made an order under section 43 of the 1973 Act. Held: The Magistrates had been wrong to conclude that the issue of ownership had been determined in the Crown Court; it granted an order of manadamus.
Police Act 1897 1 - Powers of the Criminal Courts Act 1973 43
1 Citers


 
Regina v Brentwood Justices ex parte Jones (1979) RTR 155
1979
QBD
Lord Widgery CJ
Road Traffic, Magistrates
Proceedings had begun by arrest without warrant. Lord Widgery CJ said: "that the proceedings commenced when the suspect was taken to the police station pursuant to such arrest, and when he was formally charged in the presence of a station officer, which would be the normal procedure at the station."
1 Citers


 
Regina v Troth (1979) 1 Cr App R (S) 131
1979
CACD

Police, Magistrates
The offender, a partner in a business, used a lorry which was partnership property to steal coal. The other partner was unaware of that use. An order had been made in the Crown Court to deprive the offender of his rights in the lorry. Held: The order was quashed. After referring to the application made to the Magistrates under s.1 of the 1897 Act, where the Magistrates had declined jurisdiction, the court said: "We do not say it is impossible for the Court to make an Order in a case such as this nor do we say it is impossible for the police to take proper steps under [the 1897 Act]. But clearly in the case of a partnership, it leads to difficulties which may be so onerous as to make it not worth while making the order in the first instance." An increased financial penalty might have been taken instead of making the order.
Police Property Act 1897
1 Citers


 
Goodlad v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1979] CLR 51
1979


Magistrates
Magistrates may not attach particular conditions to a requirement that a defendant be bound over to be of good behaviour.
1 Citers



 
 Regina v West London Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Klahn; QBD 1979 - [1979] 1 WLR 933

 
 Attorney-General v Leveller Magazine Ltd; HL 1-Feb-1979 - [1979] AC 440; [1978] 3 All ER 731; [1979] 2 WLR 247
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.