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: 2000 To: 2000
This page lists 19 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Customs and Excise Commissioners v City of London Magistrates' Court [2002] 1 WLR 2020; [2000] 4 All ER 763
2000
QBD
Lord Bingham CJ, Morison J
Criminal Practice, Magistrates
Access orders were sought by the Customs and Excise against banks to facilitate an investigation into the affairs of taxpayers and the issue was whether the resulting proceedings constituted "criminal proceedings" within the meaning of section 19(1). Held: "It is in my judgment the general understanding that criminal proceedings involve a formal accusation made on behalf of the state or by a private prosecutor that a defendant has committed a breach of the criminal law, and the state or the private prosecutor has instituted proceedings which may culminate in the conviction and condemnation of the defendant."
Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 19(1)
1 Citers
Regina v Neath and Port Talbot Justices, ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions Times, 15 March 2000; Gazette, 02 March 2000
2 Mar 2000
QBD
Magistrates, Criminal Practice
The magistrates had refused an adjournment of a trial after the non-attendance of the complainant. The prosecution offered no evidence, and the charge was dismissed. The prosecutor applied for judicial review, but the case came on only 16 months afterwards. The court held that several factors were to be considered, including the seriousness of the charge, the evidence and effect of any delay upon it, the defendant's contribution if any to the delay, and any justifiable feeling of aggrievement for the complainant.
O'Sullivan v Director of Public Prosecutions Unreported, 27 March 2000
27 Mar 2000
Road Traffic, Magistrates
Where a motorist challenges the accuracy of the intoximeter, there is only an evidential burden on him.
Road Traffic Act 1988 5
1 Cites
1 Citers
Regina v Luton Justices ex parte Judah Abecasis Times, 30 March 2000; Gazette, 30 March 2000
30 Mar 2000
CA
Criminal Practice, Magistrates
Although the rules specified that a form should be used when making application to extend the time for which money could be held pending an application under the Act for its forfeiture, there was no enforceable duty to prove that the form had been used, and its absence was not a fatal flaw in the application. The form was not an originating process, it was not a document served on the respondents, the defendant would be notified directly. No prejudice was established by any failure to us the form.
Drug Trafficking Act 1994 42(1) - Magistrates Courts (Detention and Forfeiture of Drug Trafficking Cash) Rules 1991 (1991 No 1923)
Christopher James Jolly v Director of Public Prosections [2000] EWHC Admin 316
31 Mar 2000
Admn
Kennedy LJ, Butterfield J
Magistrates, Evidence
At trial in the magistrates court, the prosecution had failed to bring evidence that the computer used to analyse the defendant's breath alcohol was in proper working condition. The defendant submitted no case to answer, and the magistrates allowed the prosecutor to re-open his case to put the evidence. The defendant appealed. Held: The appeal was refused. The court reviewed the cases describing when a prosecutor might be allowed to re-open his case, and this case fell within the rules.
Kennedy LJ: "In my judgment any trial court must recognise that it is the duty of the prosecution to call its evidence before closing its case. But it is now beyond argument that there is a general discretion to permit the calling of evidence at a later stage, which extends in a Magistrates' Court up to the time when the Bench retires."
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
B v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary; QBD 5-Apr-2000 - [2001] 1 WLR 340; [2000] Po LR 98; [2000] EWHC 559 (QB); [2001] 1 All ER 562
Jolley v Director of Public Prosecutions; QBD 5-May-2000 - Gazette, 05 May 2000
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council v Booth [2000] EWHC Admin 444; (2000) 164 JP 485; [2001] LLR 151; (2001) 3 LGLR 8; [2000] COD 338
10 May 2000
Admn
Lord Bingham of Cornhill LCJ, Silber J
Magistrates, Costs
Lord Bingham set out guidance in respect of costs awarded by magistrates pursuant to section 64(1) of the 1980 Act, saying: "I would accordingly hold that the proper approach to questions of this kind can for convenience be summarised in three propositions: 1. Section 64(1) confers a discretion upon a magistrates' court to make such order as to costs as it thinks just and reasonable. That provision applies both to the quantum of the costs (if any) to be paid, but also as to the party (if any) which should pay them. 2. What the court will think just and reasonable will depend on all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case before the court. The court may think it just and reasonable that costs should follow the event, but need not think so in all cases covered by the subsection. 3. Where a complainant has successfully challenged before justices an administrative decision made by a police or regulatory authority acting honestly, reasonably, properly and on grounds that reasonably appeared to be sound, in exercise of its public duty, the court should consider, in addition to any other relevant fact or circumstances, both (i) the financial prejudice to the particular complainant in the particular circumstances if an order for costs is not made in his favour, and (ii) the need to encourage public authorities to make and stand by honest, reasonable and apparently sound administrative decisions made in the public interest without fear of exposure to undue financial prejudice if the decision is successfully challenged."
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 64(1)
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Acton Youth Court ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions [2000] 2 Crim LR 75
10 May 2000
Admn
Laws LJ
Magistrates
The youth court had made an order that the victim could give evidence in-chief by video recording and the remainder of her evidence by television link. When the case came to trial before a differently constituted bench the defendant successfully applied to have the order of the first bench reversed. The Director of Public Prosecutions now applied to quash that decision, submitting that it was a decision which no reasonable bench could make and that it was inappropriate to set aside the original order. The defendant argued that a decision of the ECHR was a new circumstance. Held: The appeal succeeded. The ECHR decision was not a new circumstance. Laws LJ said: "It is necessary for the efficacious administration of justice to take a strict approach to the power of a lower court to revisit and revoke an order earlier made by itself. Clearly there must be some power to do so in the interests of justice. It arises, as my Lord has indicated, where there is a change of circumstances. Plainly that must be a change of relevant circumstances.
I would expect that cases in which an earlier existing circumstance, not drawn to the attention of the Court at the first hearing, would justify the court in later overturning its first decision would be most infrequent."
1 Cites
1 Citers
Bradford City Metropolitan District Council v Booth Times, 31 May 2000; (2000) COD 338; (2000) 164 JP 485
10 May 2000
QBD
Silber J, Lord Bingham of Cornhill
Magistrates, Local Government, Costs, Licensing
The local authority had refused to renew a private hire vehicle licence. That refusal was successfully challenged, and the magistrates had awarded costs on the basis that they should follow the event. The authority appealed. Held: The discretion given to magistrates to award such costs as it feels are just and reasonable does not mean that costs should always and normally follow the event. An authority with a duty to make decisions which suffered a successful challenge to that decision, but where the fault in the decision fell short of being unreasonable, dishonest, or improper, should not normally be ordered to pay the costs. The financial effect on the parties should be assessed, but such challenges are part of the expense of running a business. Section 64 was concerned with both liability for costs and their amount. The only statutory restriction on the power of the magistrates was that they could not make an order for costs against a successful party.
Bingham CJ said: "The issue in this appeal by case stated is whether justices erred in the exercise of their discretion by awarding costs against a local authority on a successful complaint against a vehicle licensing decision of the local authority when the local authority had not, in making the decision appealed against, acted unreasonably or in bad faith."
Later he continued "It seems to me that the justices in this case misdirected themselves, first, in relying on a principle that costs should follow the event, that misdirection being compounded by their view that the reference in section 64 to the order being just and reasonable applied to quantum only. On the other hand, in my judgment the submissions made by Mr Blair-Gould on behalf of the local authority go too far the other way since to give effect to the principle for which he contends would deprive the justices of any discretion to view the case in the round which is in my judgment what section 64 intends.
I would accordingly hold that the proper approach to questions of this kind can for convenience be summarised is three propositions:
1. Section 64(1) confers a discretion upon a magistrates' court to make such order as to costs as it thinks just and reasonable. That provision applies both to the quantum of the costs (if any) to be paid, but also as to the party (if any) which should pay them.
2. What the court will think just and reasonable will depend on all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case before the court. The court may think it just and reasonable that costs should follow the event, but need not think so in all cases covered by the subsection.
3. Where a complainant has successfully challenged before justices an administrative decision made by a police or regulatory authority acting honestly, reasonably, properly and on grounds that reasonably appeared to be sound, in exercise of its public duty, the court should consider, in addition to any other relevant fact or circumstances, both (i) the financial prejudice to the particular complainant in the particular circumstances if an order for costs is not made in his favour; and (ii) the need to encourage public authorities to make and stand by honest, reasonable and apparently sound administrative decisions made in the public interest without fear of exposure to undue financial prejudice if the decision is successfully challenged."
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 64(1) - Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 62(1)(b)
1 Cites
1 Citers
Regina v Haringey Youth Court, Ex Parte A Times, 30 May 2000
30 May 2000
QBD
Magistrates, Criminal Sentencing
Where a youth court was considering the imposition of a detention and training order on a young offender under the Act, the court should always, before retiring state this possibility in open court so that the parties can ascertain the length of time if any spent already spent in custody so that proper allowance could be made when fixing the sentence.
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 73
G v F (Non-Molestation Order: Jurisdiction) Times, 24 May 2000; Gazette, 22 June 2000
22 Jun 2000
CA
Family, Magistrates
The issue of whether a respondent to a non-molestation order application was an associated person, was to be construed purposively. The system was designed to afford a swift and accessible procedure. There had been present three of the admirable Crake signposts of co-habitation, a sexual relationship, financial support, and a respondent's admissions against interest. If they had taken the co-habitation point first, the association would have become an open question.
Family Law Act 1996
1 Cites
Regina v Inner London Crown Court, Ex Parte Provis Times, 11 July 2000
11 Jul 2000
QBD
Licensing, Magistrates
Where a party intended to object to the grant of a license it was necessary for them to give appropriate notice of that intention before appearing at court to make it. Police objections had been raised only on the date of the application for grant of the licence. Such behaviour could only give rise to expensive adjournments. Notice should be given both to the clerk to the justices and to the party applying.
Practice Direction (Justices: Clerk to Court) [2000] 4 All ER 895; [2000] 1 WLR 1886
2 Oct 2000
Lord Woolf LCJ
Magistrates, Criminal Practice
Lord Woolf gave guidance as to the duties of the clerk to the magistrates as to the manner of assistance to be provided to them. He set out that it was the responsibility of the legal adviser to provide the justices with any advice they might require properly to perform their functions whether or not the justices had requested that advice, on questions of law; questions of mixed law and fact; matters of practice and procedure; the range of penalties available; any relevant decisions of the superior courts or other guidelines; other issues relevant to the matter before the court; and the appropriate decision-making structure to be applied in any given case. In addition to advising the justices it was his responsibility to assist the court, where appropriate, as to the formulation of reasons and the recording of those reasons. The Practice Direction then goes on to note (paragraph 4) that a justice's clerk or legal adviser must not play any part in making findings of fact. It adds that he may assist the bench by reminding him of the evidence, using any notes of the proceedings for this purpose. The practice direction is clear that if the justice's clerk gives any advice to a bench he should give the parties or advocates an opportunity of repeating any relevant submissions prior to that advice being given. If it is given in private he should report that advice to the parties, and the advice should be regarded as provisional and clearly stated to be so. The adviser should subsequently repeat the substance of that advice in open court and give the parties an opportunity to make any representations they wish on that provisional advice. The legal adviser should then state in open court whether the provisional advice is confirmed or, if it is varied, the nature of the variation.
1 Citers
Practice Direction (Justices Clerk to Couty) Times, 11 October 2000
11 Oct 2000
QBD
Magistrates, Criminal Practice, Human Rights
The direction set out in detail the duties of justices' clerks and legal advisers to the magistrates and the court, in respect of the application of the Act, and generally by restating duties to provide legal advice and assistance with appropriate procedures for allowing representations by those appearing before the court, and also restating and clarifying the limits of a justices' clerk's advice on issues of fact and evidence.
Regina v Croydon Justices, ex parte W H Smith Ltd Gazette, 30 November 2000; Times, 22 November 2000
22 Nov 2000
QBD
Health and Safety, Criminal Practice, Magistrates
The power to institute proceedings for a breach of the Act lay in the inspector, and he could not delegate it. The Act was explicit in its requirements as to who could issue proceedings. The informations were not laid when the inspector requested a local authority solicitor to issue them, and there was nothing to justify any inference of a power to delegate.
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 38
Regina v Chelmsford Justices, Ex Parte Lloyd Times, 05 December 2000
5 Dec 2000
QBD
Criminal Sentencing, Magistrates
It was proper for magistrates to commit a defendant to the Crown Court for sentence where they believed that the appropriate sentence was a fine, but the level of fine they thought appropriate would be outside their powers, and only the Crown Court would have that power. The section did not limit the power to situations involving imprisonment. It would be helpful, if the justices considered this to make their views known to the defendant and his advocate to allow representations to be made, and in due course to make the basis of committal known to the Crown Court.
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 38
Regina v North East Essex Justices, ex parte Lloyd Gazette, 07 December 2000
7 Dec 2000
QBD
Magistrates, Criminal Sentencing
The magistrates had full power to commit a defendant to the Crown Court for sentence where they wanted to fine him, but considered that their powers to impose a fine were too limited. When doing so, they should invite representation on the proposal, and convey their views to the Crown Court.
Ronald and John Popely and Another v D G Scott (Kent County Council) [2000] EWHC Admin 441
21 Dec 2000
Admn
Lord Justice Rose And The Hon Mrs Justice Rafferty
Magistrates, Consumer, Land
This was an appeal by way of case stated. The appellants were alleged to have offered timeshare contracts without notification of cancellation rights. A director claimed he was unfit to attend, but the trial proceeded in his absence. He had, the day before, attended a conference with counsel. Held: Given the medical evidence before them, the magistrates should undoubtedly have allowed an adjournment. The schemes had been constructed so that the purchaser bought shares in a company rather than simply a timeshare. However the magistrates were correct to conclude that this was a timeshare agreement dressed as a share agreement. The magistrates had not effectively considered the opinions of counsel obtained by the respondent and which were capable of establishing a due diligence defence.
Timeshare Act 1992 - Magistrates Courts Act 1980 8 11
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]