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: 1990 To: 1990

This page lists 10 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Regina v Colville-Smith [1990] 1 WLR 958
1990


Magistrates
The only forfeiture which could be ordered by magistrates under the section was the defendant's right in the property.
Powers of the Criminal Courts Act 1973 43

 
Riley v Director of Public Prosecutions (1990) 91 Cr App R 14
1990
Admn
Watkins LJ
Crime, Police, Magistrates
A police officer is not acting in the execution of his duty by arresting or detaining someone unless that arrest or detention is lawful. Justices are not entitled to infer that a police officer was acting in the course of his duty in carrying out a search pursuant to section 18 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act from his bare, albeit unchallenged assertion in evidence that he was carrying out such a search.
Watkins LJ, gave guidance as to the form in which a case should be stated saying: "The Justices must endeavour to ensure in stating a case that, (1) the whole of their findings of fact are contained in one and of course an early paragraph of the case . . "
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 18
1 Citers


 
Regina v Dudley Magistrates' Court, ex parte Power City Stores Limited and Another [1990] JP 654
1990
CA
Pill LJ, Woolf LJ
Costs, Magistrates
The defendant sought to recover the cost of employing leading counsel to defend him in the magistrates court after succeeding. The magistrates had disallowed the costs of leading counsel. Held: The fact that the defendant could have obtained the same services at a much lower price than that average elsewhere is irrelevant. Pill LJ described the first test to be applied by the costs clerk on the taxation of costs in the magistrates court: "In order to fulfil the requirements of stage one he has to ask himself, first of all, whether the expenses are ones which are properly incurred by the defendant."
Woolf LJ said that in seeking to apply the statute and the Regulations the clerk to the justices had asked himself the wrong question. He asked himself if a junior counsel or a senior solicitor could reasonably have conducted the case on behalf of the applicants, and answered that question in the affirmative. What he should have asked himself was “whether the applicant acted reasonably in employing leading counsel”. If the answer to that question was in the affirmative then the expenses were properly incurred for the purposes of section 16.
He continued: "Having regard to the nature of the case, which I have already described, it is quite impossible for it to be said that the defendants were acting improperly in instructing leading counsel." and "I would content myself by making an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the justices' clerk, being confident that when the justices' clerk reconsiders the matter, as he is required to do, and reassesses what are the proper expenses to be paid, he will approach the matter in the way indicated in the judgment which I have just given. In other words he will come to the conclusion in this case, which is the only conclusion which I would regard as being proper, that it was reasonable to engage leading counsel and merely confine himself to considering what fees are properly recoverable in respect of the instruction of leading counsel."
Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985 16(6) 16(7)
1 Citers


 
Regina v Blandford Justices [1990] 1 WLR 1940
1990
CA
Taylor LJ
Magistrates, Judicial Review
The applicant had been charged with public order offences and had been remanded in custody by the Magistrates' Court. He immediately commenced judicial review proceedings on the grounds that he was charged with an offence which was not punishable with a custodial sentence. A few days later he pleaded guilty to the offence and was released but continued with the judicial review proceedings. The Divisional Court had granted his application for judicial review and the Justices appealed to the Court of Appeal. Held: As a preliminary point, the proceedings were a criminal cause or matter.
Taylor LJ said: "The application for judicial review was an application to the Divisional Court to review a decision of an inferior court in criminal proceedings then still in progress and was clearly an application in a criminal cause or matter. But Mr. Sankey says that, by the time the application was heard, the Divisional Court's judgment was not in a criminal cause or matter since the justices had made their final order. He sought to rationalise this approach by saying that, once the criminal proceedings were concluded in the magistrates' court, the decision of the Divisional Court could not affect their course and was not, therefore, in the cause or matter 'at whatever stage of the proceedings.' But, once the applicant had been granted bail the day after the challenged decision, any review by the Divisional Court of the challenged decision would not have affected the course of the criminal proceedings even if that decision had been made at some later 'stage of the proceedings' and before they were concluded. If the Divisional Court's decision was not in a criminal cause or matter, in what type of proceeding was it made? It cannot have been a decision in vacuo and, for my part, I see no basis in principle or authority for attributing such a chameleon character to a cause or matter as to make it change from criminal to civil simply because the proceedings are concluded or because the review of the decision in such cause or matter may be too late to affect the outcome of the proceedings. In my opinion, the judgment of the Divisional Court in the present case was made in a criminal cause or matter."
1 Citers



 
 Regina v Cambridge Justices ex parte Yardline Limited and Bird; 1990 - [1990] Crim LR 733
 
Regina v Abedare Justices ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions [1990] 155 JP 324
1990

Bingham LJ
Magistrates, Criminal Practice
The court considered the circumstances when a superior court should consider an appeal against a magistrates court on an adjournment of a trial: "First, a decision as to whether or not proceedings should be adjourned is, as counsel for the defendant rightly urged, a decision within the discretion of the trial court. It is pre-eminently a discretionary decision. It follows, as a matter of undoubted law, that it is a decision with which any appellate court will be very slow to interfere. It will accordingly interfere only if very clear grounds are shown for doing so.
Secondly, I wish to make it plain that the justices in this case are in no way open to criticism for paying great attention to the need for expedition in the prosecution for criminal proceedings. It has been said time and time again that delays in the administration of justice are a scandal, and they are the more scandalous when it is criminal proceedings with which a court is concerned."
1 Citers


 
Bodden v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1990] 2 QB 397
1990


Magistrates
A magistrate's power to order the detention of someone who wilfully interrupted the proceedings of the court includes 'all incidental powers necessary to enable the court to exercise the jurisdiction in a judicial manner', and specifically in this case the power to direct that the person be brought before him.
1 Citers


 
Government of America v Bowe [1990] AC 500
1990
PC
Lord Lowry
Extradition, Magistrates
Where a magistrates or similar court refuse a defence application for an adjournment, generally speaking, the entire case, including all the evidence which the parties wish to adduce, should be presented to the Magistrate before either side applies for a prerogative remedy. Only when it is clear that the extradition proceedings must fail (as where the Order to Proceed is issued by the wrong person) should this practice be varied.
1 Citers


 
Regina v Bradford Justices, ex parte Wilkinson [1990] 1 WLR 692
1990


Magistrates
A magistrates' court should grant a defendant's application for an adjournment where a witness was absent, and his evidence went to an issue critical to the defence case.
1 Citers


 
Regina v Totnes Licensing Justices, ex parte Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Times, 28 May 1990; (1990) 156 JP 587
28 May 1990
QBD
Roch J
Costs, Magistrates, Licensing
The court considered the award of costs in a licensing case. Roch J said: "There can be no doubt that in civil proceedings between litigants, be it in the High Court or county court, the principle is that costs follow the event. The winning party obtains an order for costs against the losing party unless there are exceptional circumstances or reasons why this should not be so.
Mr Barrie has pointed out that the basis of that principle is this: the losing litigant should not have contested the matter before the court. In my judgment it was wrong for the justices to treat this matter as civil proceedings between two private litigants and to ignore the factor urged upon them by the solicitor appearing for the police authority, namely, that the police have a function which they are required to perform. They are required to supervise the proper conduct of the licensed premises and to object in those cases where there are good grounds for objecting to the renewal of the licence. That that is the police’s function is clearly demonstrated by the provisions in the Licensing Act which give the police power to enter licensed premises whether at the invitation of the licensee or not.
In addition, in my view, the police authority must also bring to the attention of the licensing justices matters of which the police know and which can fairly and properly be said to amount to misconduct by the licensee or those for whom he is responsible.
Such factors emphasise the importance of the police being able to discharge their functions with regard to the licensing laws fairly and properly. Of course, if the evidence indicated that an objection by a police authority to the renewal of the justices' on-licence was misconceived, that it was without [proper] foundation or born of malice or some improper motive, then it would be just and reasonable for the police to be ordered to pay the costs of the successful licensee . . One of the roles the police must fulfil is to enable justices, who have to consider the renewal of licenses, to make informed decisions."
1 Citers


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