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: 2002 To: 2002

This page lists 20 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Regina (Hale) v Southport Justices Times, 29 January 2002
14 Jan 2002
QBD
Lord Justice Auld and Mr Justice Gage
Costs, Magistrates, Criminal Practice
The applicant had been awarded the costs of his defence by the magistrates, but the bill was halved on assessment, on the basis that an agreement to engage a solicitor of more than four years admission to defend a charge of assault and battery, and to pay him on an hourly rate was unreasonable. He appealed. Held: The clerk had misread the test in the section. It was not whether a less experienced solicitor would have been reasonably sufficient. The test was directed not to the choice of solicitor, but to the remuneration claimed. It was reasonable to agree to pay a solicitor on a flat hourly rate when charging practices at that time were in a transition period, and fees for advice prior to the actual charge were also within the section.
Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 16(6)

 
Da Costa and Co (a Firm) and Collins v Thames Magistrates Court and H M Commissioners of Customs and Excise [2002] EWHC 40 (Admin); [2002] STC 267
25 Jan 2002
QBD
Lord Justice Kennedy, and Mrs Justice Hallett
Magistrates, Customs and Excise
The claimant sought to challenge search warrants issued by the respondents. The warrants were criticised as being too widely drawn, and in breach of the 1984 Act. Criticism was also made of the implementation of the searches, in the use of excess numbers of officers, and the taking of images of hard disks, thus acquiring privileged information about other clients of the accountant claimants. Held: The imaging of the disks was less intrusive, and no different in principal from the seizure of a ledger book. The officers also questioned staff members using a pre-prepared questionnaire. The use of that should have been raised with the judge issuing the warrant. However no remedy was to be granted save for another admittedly unlawful search.
The Commissioners' power to seize "documents" when entering with a warrant under paragraph 10(3)(b) of Schedule 11 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 could extend to the physical removal of computers. "Documents" were defined in section 96(1) of that Act as "anything in which information is recorded", a very similar definition to that in section 114(2) of the Finance Act 2008. The court accepted a submission that: "A computer hard disk is a single storage entity which falls within the definition of a "document" in section 96(1) of the 1994 Act because it is something "in which information of any kind is recorded".
Vallue Added Tax Act 1994 72 - Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 15(6)(b
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Moran v Director of Public Prosecutions Times, 06 February 2002; Gazette, 15 March 2002; [2002] EWHC 89 (Admin
30 Jan 2002
QBD
Maurice Kay J
Magistrates, Human Rights
The appellant had requested the magistrates to state a case as to why they had ruled against his submission that he had no case to answer. The established rule is that they do not have to give such reasons. He argued that the new Human Rights duties required such reasons to be given to allow a fair trial under article 8. Held: The Act had not changed the situation. A summary trial is a particular procedure, and it was undesirable to require justices to give a detailed assessment of evidence and witnesses at the end of the prosecution case. "Having regard to all that authority, what then is the position in relation to a refusal by Magistrates to accede to a submission of no case to answer? In my judgment, even after 2nd October 2000 there is still no legal obligation on the Magistrates to give reasons for rejecting a submission of no case. It is now usual for us to give reasons following a finding on appeal, and that has been done in this case. If a defendant is concerned about the conduct or outcome of a summary trial, he has a number of procedural options. In particular, (1) an appeal by way of re-hearing in the Crown Court, (2) an appeal by this court by way of case stated, in which case the Justices may be required to explain in the case stated the route by which they reached a particular conclusion, or (3) in some circumstances on application for judicial review."
Human Rights Act 1998
1 Citers


 
Regina (D) v Camberwell Green Youth Court; Regina (N) v Same etc Times, 13 February 2003; [2003] EWHC 227 (Admin)
4 Feb 2002
Admn

Evidence, Human Rights, Children, Criminal Practice, Magistrates, Evidence
Defendants appealed orders allowing children to give evidence by video link, and children appealed orders requiring them to attend court to give evidence. Held: The right to a fair trial had to be interpreted broadly. Special measures taken to protect children did not infringe the Article 6 rights of defendants. The rules allowed safeguards to protect the fairness of the trial. The magistrates needed to approach the article differently.
European Convention on Human Rights 6 - Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Aldis v Director of Public Prosecutions Times, 06 March 2002
11 Feb 2002
CACD
Lord Justice Keene and Mr Justice Goldring
Criminal Sentencing, Magistrates
The defendant attained the age of 18 after the offence but before his sentence. Under 18, he would have been subject to an order of detention in a young offenders institution, with a maximum of twelve months. They imposed a sentence of four concurrent detention and training orders totaling 18 months. Held: The 1963 Act, as amended, allowed the magistrates to impose this sentence. That power had been effective in assisting the magistrates' decision on where the matter should be tried. There had been no implied repeal of the section in the 1963 Act.
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 100 - Magistrates Court Act 1980 25(6) - Children and Young Persons Act 1963 29

 
Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Duffy and Others Times, 04 April 2002
1 Mar 2002
QBD
Lord Justice Kennedy and Mr Justice Forbes
Customs and Excise, Magistrates
The three defendants were stopped on their way to Malaga. Each carried £7,000 or £6,000. Their explanations were not accepted, and the money was seized under the Act. The magistrates ordered it to be returned, and Customs appealed. Held: It was not proper to aggregate the sums under the Act so as to reach a total greater than £10,000 as required under the section. The magistrates should examine the cash under s 42(1)(a), and then look at what was the consignment. If the cash as a whole was one consignment with one source, then it did not matter how many people were carrying it.
Drug Trafficking Act 1994 42(1)

 
Regina (on the Applications of Salubi and Another) v Bow Street Magistrates Court Times, 04 June 2002; [2002] EWHC 919 (Admin); [2002] 2 Cr App R 40
10 May 2002
Admn
Lord Justice Auld and Mr Justice Gage
Magistrates, Criminal Practice
The several applicants had been accused of offences under which the cases were to be transferred direct to the Crown Court for trial. The charges were later amended, with alternative offences preferred for which similar procedures might be and were applied. The defendants challenged the application of the new procedures other than to the initial charges. Two offences had been committed before the Act. Held: Proceedings against a defendant did not become proceedings in respect of a new charge as a result of prosecutorial substitution. The substituted cases were therefore properly dealt with under the new procedure. The duty of the court under section 51 of the 1998 Act to send a case to the Crown Court does not preclude it from exercising its jurisdiction to stay proceedings as an abuse of the process, though it will very rarely be appropriate to do so.
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 51
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Prestatyn Magistrates' Court Gazette, 11 July 2002; Times, 17 October 2002
28 May 2002
QBD
Lord Justice Sedley and Mr Justice Gage
Criminal Practice, Magistrates
The defendants were charged with criminal damage to genetically modified crops in a field. They sought trial by jury but would only have a right to such a trial if the value damaged exceeded £5,000. The crops would not have been made available on the market for sale, and no value was immediately ascertainable. Held: The value was not readily ascertainable, and they represented substantial investment. Accordingly the district judge was correct to treat the value as unascertained and therefore the offence was triable either way.
Magistrates' Court Act 1980 2

 
Regina (on the Application of the Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police) v Birmingham Justices Gazette, 11 July 2002; [2002] EWHC 1087 (Admin)
30 May 2002
Admn
Lord Justice Sedley, Poole
Police, Magistrates
The Chief Constable applied for anti-social behaviour orders, but the applications were made by his officers under purported delegated powers. The district judge rejected the applications saying that the power to make such an application could not be delegated. The Chief Constable appealed. Held: He did have a general power of delegation of powers given to him under statute. He remained answerable for his choice of appropriate officers to carry out tasks so delegated. The court however could not interfere in the absence of some irrationality or other manifest error.
courtcommentary.com "Carltona" principle does not depend on status of civil servants as alter ego of their minister. Chief Constable may discharge functions under ss (1) & (2) Crime and Disorder Act 1998 through any officer(s) judged suitable by him for whom he is answerable
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 81
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Pope (Criminal) Gazette, 08 August 2002; [2002] UKHL 26; [2002] 3 All ER 889; [2002] 2 Cr App Rep 34; [2002] 1 WLR 1966; [2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 63
20 Jun 2002
HL
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Millett and Lord Scott of Foscote
Criminal Sentencing, Magistrates
The Magistrates committed the defendant to the Crown Court for sentence. In addition to other sentences the Crown Court imposed a confiscation order. The defendant succeeded in an appeal to the Court of Appeal, and the Crown now appealed. Held: The Crown Court had full power to make such an order. There had been no hiatus in its powers between 1995 and 1998. The power had always been available under section 42 of the 1973 Act.
Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 38 - Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 42 - Criminal Justice Act 1988 71
[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Warrington Crown Court Chief Constable of Cheshire Constabulary, Ex Parte RBNB (A Company) Times, 21 June 2002; Times, 01 August 2002; [2002] UKHL 24; (2003) 167 JPN 31; [2002] BCC 697; [2002] NPC 85; [2002] 1 WLR 1954; [2002] 4 All ER 131; (2003) 167 JP 6
20 Jun 2002
HL
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Mustill, Lord Hutton, Lord Millett and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Company, Licensing, Magistrates
The company refused to disclose the identity of its shareholders, when it applied for an alcohol license. The magistrates refused a licence it on the basis that the information was needed to assess the fitness of the company to hold the licence. The Crown Court refused the licence, but it was then granted on appeal. The police appealed. Held: The shares were held through companies in such a way that the identity of the shareholders was not publicly ascertainable, and the court could not be sure that those controlling the company were appropriate. The appeal was refused. There was no extraneous reason to doubt the fitness of the proposed licensee. The term 'a fit and proper person' is to be construed according to the context. Questions about the eventual ownership of the owner were a distraction from the proposed licensee's own fitness.
[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
 
W, Regina (on the Application of) v Thetford Youth Justices and Another [2002] EWHC 1252 (Admin); [2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 67; [2002] Crim LR 681; 166 JP 453; (2002) 166 JP 453
25 Jun 2002
Admn
Sedley LJ, Gage J
Magistrates, Criminal Practice

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Fox v Commissioners of Customs and Excise Times, 20 July 2002; Gazette, 12 September 2002
3 Jul 2002
QBD
Mr Justice Lightman
Customs and Excise, Magistrates, Human Rights
The claimant had been stopped by customs. He had imported various items which it was alleged exceeded the amounts appropriate for personal use. The goods had been mixed with his travelling companion. At trial he sought to challenge the fact that the Customs had treated his and his companion's goods together. Held: The provision allowing forfeiture of any goods found with contraband did not mean that a claimant could not bring evidence to challenge the assertions made by Customs and Excise. To hold to the contrary would infringe the claimant's property rights.
Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 141(1)(b) - European Convention on Human Rights Sch 1

 
Callander v Director of Public Prosecutions [2002] EWHC 1523 (Admin)
10 Jul 2002
Admn

Crime, Magistrates

Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a) - Magistrates Courts (Advance Notice of Expert Evidence) Rules 1997 3
[ Bailii ]

 
 W, Regina (on The Application of) v Southampton Youth Court; Admn 23-Jul-2002 - [2002] EWHC 1640 (Admin); [2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 87; (2002) 166 JP 569; [2002] Crim LR 750
 
Regina (Crown Prosecution Service) v Chorley Justices Times, 22 October 2002; Gazette, 07 November 2002; [2002] EWHC 2162 (Admin)
9 Oct 2002
Admn
Latham, McCombe JJ
Criminal Practice, Magistrates, Human Rights
The prosecution had requested the magistrates to impose on the defendant as a condition of his bail, a requirement that when so requested by a police officer checking that he was at home and otherwise complying with the bail condition, he should come to door. Held: The 'doorstep' condition was validly imposed. The Act gave the magistrates the power to impose such conditions as appeared to them to be necessary to secure the defendant's appearance at court. The defendant's article 5 and 8 rights were engaged, the procedure was clear, accessible, and proportionate.
Bail Act 1976 3(6) - European Convention on Human Rights 5 8
[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina (Commissioners of Customs and Excise) v Canterbury Crown Court and Another; QBD 14-Nov-2002 - Times, 06 December 2002
 
Cronin, Regina (on The Application of) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and Another Times, 28 November 2002; Gazette, 30 January 2003; [2002] EWHC 2568 (Admin); [2003] 1 WLR 752
20 Nov 2002
Admn
Lord Woolf of Barnes LCJ, Hallett, Stanley Burnton JJ
Magistrates, Police, Human Rights, Magistrates
The applicant had had his premises searched. He sought to challenge the basis on which search warrant had been granted. He argued that under the Convention, it was necessary for the magistrates to provide a written record of the reasons for granting the warrant. Held: Where the information laid was itself sufficient to account for the warrant a magistrate could be assumed to have acted upon it, and no further reasons were required to be noted. Warrants were often issued under conditions where such a requirement would be unreasonable. Here the magistrate would only have repeated the contents of the information. Where a magistrate elicited further information from the officer which affected the decision, it was necessary for that to be recorded.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 23(3) - European Convention on Human Rights Art 6 Art 8 - Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 8 15 16
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Cronin, Regina (on The Application of) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and Another Times, 28 November 2002; Gazette, 30 January 2003; [2002] EWHC 2568 (Admin); [2003] 1 WLR 752
20 Nov 2002
Admn
Lord Woolf of Barnes LCJ, Hallett, Stanley Burnton JJ
Magistrates, Police, Human Rights, Magistrates
The applicant had had his premises searched. He sought to challenge the basis on which search warrant had been granted. He argued that under the Convention, it was necessary for the magistrates to provide a written record of the reasons for granting the warrant. Held: Where the information laid was itself sufficient to account for the warrant a magistrate could be assumed to have acted upon it, and no further reasons were required to be noted. Warrants were often issued under conditions where such a requirement would be unreasonable. Here the magistrate would only have repeated the contents of the information. Where a magistrate elicited further information from the officer which affected the decision, it was necessary for that to be recorded.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 23(3) - European Convention on Human Rights Art 6 Art 8 - Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 8 15 16
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Liverpool City Council v Pleroma Distribution Ltd Times, 02 December 2002; Gazette, 30 January 2003; [2002] EWHC 2467 (Admin)
21 Nov 2002
Admn
Maurice Kay J
Magistrates
The defendant had applied for an adjournment of the council's application for a liability order. The court made an order without considering the application, not having been told of it. On later discovering the application, they set aside the liability order to consider the application. The council objected. Held: Although no statutory basis existed for such a re-opening of their decision, the magistrates could rely upon their inherent powers. They had a discretion to exercise, and had been requested to exercise it, but had not done so, and they had not exhausted their jurisdiction.
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 - Local Government and Finance Act 1988
1 Citers

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