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: 1980 To: 1984

This page lists 24 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Regina v Nottingham Justices, ex parte Davis [1980] 71 Crim App R 178; [1981] 1 QB 38
1980
QBD
Donaldson LJ and Bristow J
Magistrates, Criminal Practice
On a second or subsequent application for bail, magistrates need only ask first whether there had been a material change in circumstancs since the original order. If there had been no change, there was no need to look at the facts underlying the previous refusals of bail.
Lord Justice Donaldson said: "The court considering afresh the question of bail is both entitled and bound to take account not only of the change in circumstances which has occurred since the last occasion but also all circumstances which, although they then existed, were not brought to the attention of the court. To do so is not to impugn the previous decision of the court and is necessary in justice to the accused. The question is a little wider than 'Has there been a change?', it is 'Are there new considerations which were not before the court when the accused was last remanded in custody?'"
1 Citers


 
Regina v Berwyn Justices, Ex parte Edwards [1980] 1 WLR 1045
1980


Crime, Magistrates

1 Citers


 
Regina v Rochdale Justices ex parte Allwork [1981] 3 All ER 434
1981


Magistrates, Criminal Practice
The court considered the circumstances in which a Crown Court can return a case to the Magistrates court for reconsideration.


 
 Regina v Howell (Errol); CACD 1981 - [1982] 1 QB 416; [1982] QB 416; [1981] 73 Crim App R 31

 
 Regina v Uxbridge Justices, ex parte Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; CA 1981 - [1981] 1 QB 829

 
 Regina v Brentford Justices Ex parte Wong; QBD 1981 - [1981] 1 All ER 884; [1981] 2 WLR 203; (1981) 73 Cr App R 67; [1981] QB 445

 
 Regina v Hall; CACD 1981 - [1981] 74 Cr App R 67
 
Regina v Klisiak; Regina v Ramsgate Justices, ex parte Warren [1981] CLY 549
1981


Magistrates

1 Citers



 
 Morris v Matthews; CA 1981 - [1981] JP 233
 
Regina v Watford Justices, Ex parte Outrim (1982) [1983] RTR 26
1982


Magistrates
Magistrates have a jurisdiction to hear abuse of process arguments.
1 Citers



 
 Newman and others v London Borough of Hackney; 1982 - [1982] RTR 296

 
 Regina v Manchester Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Hill; Hill v Anderton; HL 1982 - [1983] 1 AC 328; [1982] 3 WLR 331; (1982) 146 JP 348; [1982] 2 All ER 963; [1982] Crim LR 755; (1982) 75 Cr App R 346; [1982] 2 All ER 963

 
 Regina v Carey; 1983 - [1983] 76 Cr App R 152
 
Regina v Macclesfield Justices, ex parte Jones (1983) RTR 143
1983


Magistrates
A defendant who is guilty of deliberately seeking to postpone a trial without good reason has no cause for complaint if his application for an adjournment is refused.
1 Citers



 
 Marco (Croydon) Ltd v Metropolitan Police Commissioner; QBD 1983 - [1983] Crim LR 395
 
Regina v Guildford Magistrates' Court, ex parte Healy [1983] 1 WLR 108
1983
CACD
Buxton LJ
Criminal Practice, Magistrates
Magistrates faced with a claim of abuse of process should recognise the wider responsibility for upholding the rule of law which must be that of the High Court. If a serious question arises as to the deliberate abuse of extradition procedures a magistrate should allow an adjournment so that an application can be made to the Divisional Court.
1 Citers



 
 Regina v Knightsbridge London Crown Court ex parte Marcrest Properties Ltd; CA 1983 - [1983] 1 WLR 300; [1983] 1 All ER 1148

 
 Regina v Liverpool City Justices ex parte Topping; 1983 - [1983] 1 WLR 119
 
Regina v Reigate Justices, ex parte Counsell (1984) 148 JP 193
1984


Magistrates

1 Citers


 
Regina v Clerkenwell Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions [1984] 2 All ER 193
1984


Magistrates
A magistrate acting not as an Examining Magistrate, but deciding a preliminary issue as to jurisdiction, gives a ruling which is final and can properly be challenged by way of case stated or judicial review.
1 Citers


 
In re McC (A Minor); McC v Mullan [1985] AC 528; [1984] 3 WLR 1227; [1984] 3 All ER 908
1984
HL
Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Lowry, Lor Templeman
Litigation Practice, Magistrates
The House considered the immunity from suit of judges. The Magistrate here had passed a custodial sentence on a minor without complying with a statutory provision which required him to inform the offender of the right to Legal Aid. Held: The House reaffirmed the common law rule that judges of the higher courts were immune from suit even if it could be shown that they had been actuated by malice.
Lord Bridge said: "The principle underlying this rule is clear. If one judge in a thousand acts dishonestly within his jurisdiction to the detriment of a party before him, it is less harmful to the health of society to leave that party without a remedy than that nine hundred and ninety nine honest judges should be harassed by vexatious litigation alleging malice in the exercise of their proper jurisdiction." and "It is, of course, clear that the holder of any judicial office who acts in bad faith, doing what he knows he has no power to do, is liable in damages. If the Lord Chief Justice himself, on the acquittal of a defendant charged before him with a criminal offence, were to say: ‘That is a perverse verdict’, and thereupon proceed to pass a sentence of imprisonment, he could be sued for trespass."
The word 'jurisdiction' is not always used in its strict sense
Lord Templeman discussed the judicial immunity of Magistrates: "If in the course of a trial which a magistrate is empowered to undertake, the magistrate misbehaves or does not accord the accused a fair trial, or is guilty or some other breach of the principles of natural justice or reaches a result which is vitiated by any error of fact or law, the decision may be quashed by the Magistrate Acts within jurisdiction."
Lord Lowry said that the Courts should be slow to change or develop the law in disputed areas of social policy, particularly when Parliament has considered the position and made some changes, or has rejected the opportunity to make changes.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
McC v Mullan; In re McC (A Minor) [1985] AC 528; [1984] 3 All ER 908; [1984] 3 WLR 1227; (1984) 81 Cr App R 54
1984
HL
Lord Bridge of Harwich
Magistrates
A statutory condition precluded magistrates from making the order they did unless a juvenile offender who was not legally represented had been refused legal aid, or had been informed of his right to apply for it but had refused or neglected to do so. These conditions had not been met and so the magistrates had no power to make the order. The conditions directly affected the jurisdiction to make the order.
Lord Bridge of Harwich said: "It is, of course, clear that the holder of any judicial office who acts in bad faith, doing what he knows he has no power to do, is liable in damages. If the Lord Chief Justice himself, on the acquittal of a defendant charged before him with a criminal offence, were to say: ‘That is a perverse verdict’, and thereupon proceed to pass a sentence of imprisonment, he could be sued for trespass. But, as Lord Esher MR said in Anderson v Gorrie: ‘the question arises whether there can be an action against a judge of a court of record for doing something within his jurisdiction, but doing it maliciously and contrary to good faith. By the common law of England it is the law that no such action will lie."
and "The principle underlying this rule is clear. If one judge in a thousand acts dishonestly within his jurisdiction to the detriment of a party before him, it is less harmful to the health of society to leave that party without a remedy than that nine hundred and ninety nine honest judges should be harassed by vexatious litigation alleging malice in the exercise of their proper jurisdiction."
1 Citers


 
Mercer v Oldham [1984] Crim LR 232
1984
QBD

Magistrates, Police, Costs
The respondent had recovered his car from the police via a complaint to the magistrates, having lent it to his brother-in-law, who had used it in a burglary. The magistrates found that he had not known of the intended use. The police had taken no steps to ascertain his state of knowledge, and the magistrates ordered the police to pay his costs. The police appealed by case stated against the order for costs. Held. The appeal was dismissed. The conduct of the police justified the order. In the course of judgment the Court said: "In matters of this kind, it was of the utmost assistance to the justices that the police should be present at court, both to indicate whether or not they objected to the order being made, and to test the evidence of a claimant. In such circumstances, the justices would normally make no order for costs. But they did have a discretion, and if they considered that the police had gone beyond the usual rule merely assisting the justices, and actively opposed the order, then there was no reason why the justices should not, in the exercise of their discretion, order the police to pay costs. That was clearly what happened in the present case."

 
Regina v Camberwell Green Magistrates' Court ex parte Ibrahim [1984] 148 JPL 400
1984

Taylor J
Magistrates
Taylor J said: "In my judgment, it is unfair and contrary to the interests of justice that simply because the applicant arrived half an hour late, she should be barred for ever from raising such defence as she wishes to what could be regarded as a serious charge."
1 Citers


 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.