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: 2001 To: 2001

This page lists 19 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Regina (on the application of Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police) v Daventry Justices [2001] EWHC Admin 446
2001


Police, Magistrates
Appeals against decisions by magistrates under the Act can be by way of application for judicial review.
Police (Property) Act 1897 1(1)
1 Citers



 
 Evans v Director of Public Prosecutions; Admn 2001 - [2001] EWHC Admin 369

 
 Regina v Clerk to Liverpool Magistrates' Court Ex Parte McCormick; Regina v Same; Ex Parte Larkin; QBD 12-Jan-2001 - Times, 12 January 2001

 
 Wildman v Director of Public Prosecutions; CA 23-Jan-2001 - Times, 08 February 2001
 
Regina v Havering Magistrates Court, Ex Parte Director of Public Prosecutions; Regina v Wirral Borough Magistrates Court, Ex Parte Mckeown Times, 07 February 2001; [2001] 1 WLR 805
7 Feb 2001
QBD

Criminal Evidence, Magistrates, Human Rights
A magistrate considering an allegation of breach of bail, need not take account only of evidence which was strictly admissible. The Magistrates must take proper account of the evidential quality of what was presented, but it was not a breach of the defendant's article 5 rights to hear the case on this basis. The standards applicable under article 6 need not be the same as those under this article. In the absence of a power to adjourn, where the magistrates considered there was a need for an adjournment, then they should not detain the defendant, since this indicated a failure to establish the allegation to the requisite degree.
Bail Act 1976 - Human Rights Act 1998
1 Citers



 
 Regina v Marylebone Magistrates Court ex parte Andrew Clingham; Admn 20-Feb-2001 - Times, 20 February 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 582
 
Regina v Teesside Magistrates' Court ex parte Ellison Times, 20 February 2001
20 Feb 2001
QBD

Magistrates
The power and duty to deal with a defendant brought before the magistrates on an accusation of breach of the terms of his bail lay with the magistrates, and even where the bail had been set by the crown court and he was due to appear in the Crown Court within a few days, they had to deal with the matter on the defendant being brought before them. They have no power to commit the defendant to the Crown Court for that court to deal with him.
Bail Act 1976 7(5)


 
 Regina (McCann and Others) v Manchester Crown Court; CA 9-Mar-2001 - Times, 09 March 2001; [2001] 1 WLR 1084; [2001] EWCA Civ 281
 
Regina ex parte Maurice John Kirk v Bristol Crown Court Barry Magistrates Court Bridgend Magistrates Court Vale of Glamorgan Magistrates Court Cardiff Magistrates Court [2001] EWHC Admin 176
13 Mar 2001
Admn

Magistrates

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Colchester Justices Ex Parte Abbott Times, 13 March 2001; Gazette, 12 April 2001
13 Mar 2001
QBD

Magistrates, Crime
When calculating the value of damage for the purpose of deciding whether an allegation of criminal damage could be referred to the Crown Court, the damage was the replacement value and not the consequential losses. An activist was accused of damaging genetically engineered crops. The replacement value was £750, but the consequential losses amounted to over £5000. It was triable only at the Magistrates Court.
Criminal Damage Act 1971 - Magistrates Courts Act 1980 22


 
 Westminster City Council v Mendoza; CA 22-Mar-2001 - Times, 22 March 2001

 
 Osbourne v Kendrick; CA 25-Apr-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 690

 
 Regina (Wardle) v Leeds Crown Court; HL 24-May-2001 - Gazette, 24 May 2001; Times, 13 March 2001; [2001] UKHL 12; [2001] 2 All ER 1; [2001] 2 Cr App Rep 20; [2001] 2 WLR 865; (2001) 165 JPN 327; [2001] ACD 82; (2001) 165 JP 465; [2001] HRLR 29
 
Practice Direction (Magistrates' Court: Contempt) Times, 11 June 2001
11 Jun 2001
QBD

Magistrates, Contempt of Court
Detailed guidance was given by the court as to the way in which magistrates should deal with persons refusing to give evidence, or otherwise behaving in a way which might be a contempt of court. They should cease to use their power to bind a defendant over. The magistrates should consider detention of the person until he could be dealt with without disrupting the court, but in any event progress should be made within the day. He must be offered legal aid and representation. In the event of a not guilty plea different magistrates should hear the case. The sentence should allow for time spent in custody, and be no more than was necessary.

 
Regina (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Acton Youth Court Times, 21 June 2001; Gazette, 21 June 2001; [2001] 1 WLR 1828; [2001] EWHC Admin 402
21 Jun 2001
QBD
Woolf LJ
Criminal Practice, Magistrates
It was not normally necessary for magistrates to excuse themselves from further involvement in a case after making preliminary rulings on a request for public immunity certificates. The purpose of that ex parte hearing was to ensure the protection of the defendant. Indeed knowing of that original application might allow the defendant greater protection. The fact that magistrates were judges both of the law and of the facts in a case did not sufficiently distinguish them from other decision makers, and the approval of such an approach under the Act should be extended to magistrates also.
Human Rights Act 1998
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Regina on the Application of Hussain v Derby Magistrates' Court and Lord Chancellor's Department; Admn 3-Jul-2001 - [2001] EWHC Admin 507; [2001] All ER (D) 26; [2001] 1 WLR 245
 
Evans (Darren Michael) v Director of Public Prosecutions Times, 09 July 2001
9 Jul 2001
QBD

Magistrates
When stating a case for the High Court, justices may not put on the statement a gloss additional to the reasons given in their own decision, and not should they change the reasons for the decision. In announcing their verdict, they said they had found the complainant's evidence more credible, and in doing so implied that they had not applied the test of being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. When stating their case, the magistrates had changed those reasons, or at best put a gloss on them, and that was unacceptable.

 
Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council v Grant Gazette, 25 October 2001
17 Sep 2001
FD
Wall J
Licensing, Children, Magistrates
The council cancelled the respondent's registration as a child minder. The respondent appealed to the Magistrates, and succeeded, the court finding that the process undertaken by the council had infringed his rights. On appeal the council succeeded. The magistrates should have looked beyond procedural issues. The appeal to them required a hearing de novo. The matter was remitted to be heard before a different bench. Though the case should have been heard by magistrates who were members of the family panel, that was not sufficient itself to vitiate the decision.
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 - Children Act 1989 77(6) - Human Rights Act 1998

 
Regina (Kashamu) v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another; Regina (Kashamu) v Bow Street Magistrates' Court; Regina (Makhlulif and Another) v Bow Street Magistrates' Court Times, 12 December 2001; Gazette, 01 February 2002; [2001] EWHC 980 (Admin); [2001] EWHC Admin 980; [2002] QB 887
23 Nov 2001
QBD
Lord Justice Rose and Mr Justice Pitchford
Extradition, Human Rights, Magistrates
Where a magistrates' court heard an application for extradition, it was within its proper ambit to assess the lawfulness of the detention of the suspect in the light of the Human Rights Convention, but not to stray onto issues which were only for the eventual court of trial to hear. Article 5 expressly required the lawfulness of a person's detention to be determined speedily by a court. The Magistrates' Court was the obvious and proper forum for this question. Existing case law which said that it was not for the Magistrates to decide whether the procedure as a whole was an abuse did not restrict this Human Rights power.
Extradition Act 1989 11(3) Sch1 Para 6(1) - European Convention on Human Rights 5
1 Cites

1 Citers

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