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: 1985 To: 1989

This page lists 22 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Vasey v Vasey [1985] FLR 596; [1985] 15 Fam Law 158
1985
CA

Family, Magistrates
The wife had deserted her husband. The magistrates reduced her maintenance saying that her behaviour was gross and obvious. Held: Her appeal was upheld. The magistrates should have first made findings on each element listed in 3(1) and only then balance those factors so as to make an order which was just and reasonable in all the circumstances. The most important function was finding the balance between needs and resources. Only if conduct was exceptional should it weigh in the balance. The court should be reluctant to make judgments about the behaviour of one party without hearing as to the entire conduct of both parties during the marriage.
Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates Courts Act 1978 2 3(1)
1 Citers


 
Regina v Skegness Magistrates' Court ex parte Cardy [1985] RTR 49
1985

Robert Goff LJ
Road Traffic, Evidence, Magistrates
Representations that the Intoximeter or other device used for measuring breath alcohol, should not have been approved or that the Secretary of State should have withdrawn approval in respect of the device should be addressed to the Secretary of State and not to the court. While an approval subsisted it is 'wholly immaterial to mount a challenge to the general reliability of these approved devices in individual prosecutions brought under the Act'. There is no provision for discovery of documents for a summary trial in a magistrates' court and section 97(1) should not be used as a disguised attempt to obtain discovery. The summons issued to compel the manufacturer to produce documents relating to the functioning and design of the breath-testing instrument was quashed as a "fishing expedition" and because the documents were not admissible per se because they would need an expert witness to interpret them.
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 97(1)
1 Citers


 
Regina v Birmingham Justices, ex parte Hodgson [1985] QB 1131
1985

McCullough J
Magistrates
McCullough J said that a defendant must 'understand the nature and significance' of his choice of venue for his trial. The central factor was the state of mind of the defendant at the time he made his election: "Did he properly understand the nature and significance of the choice which was put to him?"
1 Citers



 
 Regina v Derby Crown Court, ex parte Brooks; QBD 1985 - [1985] 80 Cr App R 164

 
 in re Smalley; HL 1985 - [1985] 1 AC 623
 
Streames v Copping [1985] QB 920
1985


Magistrates
The court considered the power to require magistrates to state a case on an interloctory issue. Held: Where the Justices had not made a final determination they had no jurisdiction to state a case. Section 111 applies only to a final determination of a case.
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 11191)
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Patterson v Charlton; 1986 - [1986] RTR 18
 
Regina v Newham Juvenile Court ex parte F (A Minor) [1986] 1 WLR 939; [1986] 3 All ER 17; [1986] Crim LR 557; (1986) 84 Cr App R 81
1986
QBD
Stephen Brown LJ, McCullough J
Criminal Practice, Magistrates
F who was 16 years old when he appeared before the juvenile court charged with robbery and possession of an imitation firearm. The justices decided to proceed summarily. No plea was taken. After being released on bail, he later appeared before a different bench, facing additional charges. The justices purported to reverse the previous decision. They committed the applicant to the Crown Court for trial in respect of the original charges. Held: The second decision was quashed. Once a properly constituted bench of justices had considered all the factors placed before the court that were relevant to the exercise of their discretion under section 24 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and ordered summary trial, a differently constituted bench of justices had no power to re-examine that decision on the same facts.
Stephen Brown LJ said: "Unfortunately, the justices, as is clear from their affidavits, did not take into account any additional circumstances nor, it would seem, any additional facts beyond those which had been placed before the justices on 20 September. In those circumstances the question has to be asked: were they at liberty to review and reverse a decision which had been formally taken and announced by a properly constituted bench of justices having the power and duty to make the inquiry under section 24(1)? There is an apparent anomaly if they do not have such power, because section 25 provides that where a court has begun to try an information summarily it can, if it takes the view that it should not continue to try the case summarily, continue the hearing as examining justices with a view to committal for trial. It may therefore seem anomalous that they cannot change their minds before actually embarking on a summary trial.
Justices like every other court, must of course exercise such discretion as they have judicially, but this is not merely a matter of discretion; it is a matter of power. Have they got power to reverse a decision taken by their colleagues at an earlier hearing? In my judgment the whole scheme of the Act suggests that they do not have that power before embarking upon the hearing. Once a decision has been made after proper inquiry and consideration of all relevant factors, it cannot be reversed merely by re- examining the case afresh on the same material.
It seems to me that they may well have had the opportunity for taking a different view from that taken by their colleagues in the light of the new and additional factors which had emerged since 20 September. For example, not only was it alleged that a further serious offence had been committed whilst the applicant was on bail, and with which the justices had to deal quite separately, but in addition a great deal more information was before them as to the character of the applicant. They now knew that a number of other offences were alleged to have been committed by him from May onwards. Those were matters which were not before the justices who had sat on 20 September, so there was in my judgment material upon which it could be argued that it would be proper for the justices to review the question as to mode of trial.
As I have said, that was not in fact the way in which these justices proceeded. Their affidavits are very frank and clear about that matter. It seems to me that this was simply a different view formed upon the same facts by a differently constituted bench. In my judgment in the result they did exceed their powers. Prima facie therefore that decision should be quashed and also the decision to commit for trial."
McCullough J said: "a decision under section 24(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 is not irrevocable. However, once such a decision has been taken and announced, it will in the great majority of cases stand. But in a case where trial on indictment has been decided upon, it is in my opinion open to the justices to review that decision at any stage up to the start of their inquiry as examining justices. Such a review will be permissible if a change of circumstances has occurred since the original decision was taken and also if circumstances are brought to the attention of the court which, although existing when the original decision was taken, were not then drawn to the attention of the court. I am thinking, for example, of a case where justices are told on a later occasion that the facts of the charge were less serious than the court was originally led to believe, or where the court learns facts about the defendant's background, character, and antecedents, which indicate that if he is found guilty there will be no need after all for it to be possible to sentence him in pursuance of section 53(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.
Similarly, in a case where summary trial has been decided upon, it is in my opinion open to the justices to review that decision at any stage up to the beginning of the summary trial. Such a review is permissible if a change of circumstances has occurred since the original decision was taken and also if circumstances are brought to the attention of the court which, although existing when the original decision was taken, were not then drawn to the attention of the court . . Put more shortly, at any stage before the tracks divide, the decision as to which track is to be pursued is open to revision upon the demonstration of what may shortly be called a change of circumstances. I see nothing in section 24(1)(a) to prevent this. On the contrary, I take it to have been the intention of Parliament that the decision should be taken on the fullest information available to the court immediately before the tracks divide. Any other construction may lead to injustice."
Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 24(1)
1 Citers


 
Regina v Birmingham Magistrates Court ex parte Robinson [1986] 150 JP 1
1986


Magistrates

1 Citers


 
Regina v Clerk to Medway Justices ex parte Department of Health and Social Security (1986) 150 JP Rep 401
1986


Magistrates
A magistrate asked to issue a summons is entitled to consider delay, even within any time limit for the bringing of prosecutions and, absent any finding that a fair trial would be impossible, at least if there is wholly unexplained delay which can be regarded as unconscionable.
1 Citers


 
Brookes v Retail Credit Cards Ltd (1986) CCLR 5; (1987) CLR 327
1986
QBD
Lloyd LJ
Magistrates, Consumer
The defendants, a regulated consumer credit provider provided its srevices to A's customers. A's promotional materials were found to be in breach of the Act and the defendant was now prosecuted for procuring that offence. Held: The prosecutor's appeal against dismissal failed. Obiter, section 170(1) might, but did not necessarily, preclude an action. Lloyd LJ said: "The exclusion of civil sanctions other than those provided in the Act serves an obvious purpose. Exclusion of criminal sanctions is not so easy to understand. Whatever the reason for the exclusion and whatever it was intended to cover, I am clear that it does not exclude the liability of accessories".
Consumer Credit Act 1974 170(1)
1 Citers



 
 Regina v Felixstowe Justices ex parte Leigh; CA 1987 - [1987] 1 QB 582
 
Regina v Tower Bridge Magistrates' Court, ex-parte Director of Public Prosecutions [1988] Crim LR 759
1988


Magistrates
A witness summons issued by a Stipendiary Magistrate compelling a police officer to produce the service record and log of a breath-testing instrument was quashed on the basis that it was a "fishing expedition."
1 Citers


 
Regina v Pontypridd Juvenile Court ex parte B and others (1988) 153 JP 213
1988
Admn
Mann LJ, Schiemann J
Magistrates
The court was asked about compliance with the time limits in the 1980 Act. There was a computer link between the police station and the magistrates' court. The practice for laying an information was for the police to feed the information into the system which transmitted it to the court. The six month time limit expired on Saturday 6th June. The informations against the defendants were fed into the system by the police on Friday the 5th June. The input was not printed out at the magistrates' court until Monday 8th June. The stipendiary magistrate held that the informations had been laid within time. Held: Mann LJ said: "Mr Leighton Davies felt constrained – in my view, rightly so, – to accept that if the letter had been received on Friday but not opened until Monday, section 127 would have been satisfied. In 1988 and in the light of what Lord Roskill said in 1982, it appears to me quite unrealistic to suggest that there is any distinction between feeding information into a computer which is printed out on Monday and posting a letter which is opened on Monday. I regret that there is nothing that I can see in these applications despite all that Mr Leighton Davies has said on behalf of the applicants."
Magistrates' Court Act 1980 127(1)
1 Citers


 
Regina v The Eversham Justices ex parte McDonagh [1988] QB 553
1988


Magistrates

1 Citers


 
Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Harrison [1988] 3 All ER 86
1988
QBD
Stuart-Smith LJ and Farquharson J
Magistrates
A magistrate is not a 'public authority'.
1 Citers



 
 Regina v Liverpool Juvenile Court ex parte R; 1988 - [1988] QB 1; [1987] 2 All ER 668; (1987) 86 Cr App R 1; [1987] Crim LR 572; [1987] 3 WLR 224
 
Regina v York City Justices ex parte Farmery (1988) 153 JP 257
1988
QBD
May LJ
Magistrates
The magistrates had been asked to be represented on a case stated to explain their apparently unreasonable order. Held: Though the application was successful against the magistrates and they had appeared, costs were not awarded against them because they had taken no active part in the lis.
1 Citers



 
 Regina v Malvern Justices, Ex parte Evans; 1988 - [1988] 1 All ER 371; [1988] QB 540
 
Regina v Reading Crown Court, Ex parte Hutchinson [1988] QB 384
1988
QBD
Lloyd J
Magistrates
A defendant to a charge brought under a byelaw is entitled to raise the question of the validity of that byelaw in criminal proceedings before magistrates or the Crown Court, by way of defence. There was nothing in the statutory basis of the jurisdiction of the justices which precluded their considering a challenge to the validity of a byelaw. "Coming to London to the High Court is inconvenient and expensive. Byelaws are generally local laws which have been made for local people to do with local concerns. Magistrates' courts are local courts and there is one in every town of any size in England. The cost of proceedings in a magistrates' court are far less than in the High Court. I believe this egalitarian aspect of seeking recourse to the law in a magistrates' court to be an important sign of the availability of justice for all."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Regina v Downham Market Magistrates Court ex parte Nudd; 1988 - [1988] 152 JP

 
 Regina v Merthyr Tydfil Magistrates Court and Day ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions; QBD 1989 - [1989] Crim LR 148
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.