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: 2003 To: 2003

This page lists 26 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Regina v McGrath [2003] EWCA Crim 2062
2003
CACD
Laws LJ
Criminal Practice, Magistrates
The section 51(7) notice stated that the person had been sent for trial to the Crown Court "on the following indictable only offence: burglary, aggravated." Apart from the misspelling, the point was taken on appeal that the notice did not make clear the nature of the indictable-only offence; the appellant had not been charged with the distinct offence of aggravated burglary; the notice had not followed the wording of the relevant schedule to the Magistrates' Court Act 1980, which had specified the circumstances in which a burglary would indeed be an indictable-only offence (as the case in point undoubtedly was). Held: The court recognised a real distinction between the sending of a defendant to the Crown Court and the subsequent notice, an administrative act; completion of the notice could not retrospectively invalidate the sending. Laws LJ: " We would say only that, given the plain unqualified obligation on magistrates' courts imposed by section 51(1) and the fact that section 51(7) is on any view adjectival to that obligation, we consider that it would be difficult to argue that the very existence of the section 51(1) duty in any case depends on the fulfillment of the section 51(7) duty. That is not to say that a failure to fulfill section 51(7) might not give rise to due process arguments on behalf of a defendant if prejudice or unfairness were occasioned, but nothing of that kind is in reality in play here… "
1 Citers



 
 Regina (on the application of Marsh) v Lincoln District Magistrates' Court; Admn 2003 - [2003] EWHC 956 (Admin)
 
Hayes, Regina (on the Application Of) v Chelmsford Crown Court [2003] EWHC 73 (Admin)
22 Jan 2003
Admn

Magistrates

Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 112
[ Bailii ]
 
C and D, Regina (on the Application of) v Sheffield Youth Court and Another [2003] EWHC 35 (Admin)
23 Jan 2003
Admn
Stanley Burnton J
Magistrates, Criminal Sentencing
In making its sentencing decision the Youth Court should take into account any undisputed fact put forward in mitigation, such as the good character of the accused, and the Youth Court must consider the sentencing powers of the Crown Court under section 91(3) and the guidance that has been given as to their exercise - "If, on the basis of that guidance, there is no real possibility of such a sentence, committal is inappropriate." and "Was the decision of the Youth Court wrong? The test is one appropriate to a review court rather than one making the original decision. Parliament has clearly given the original decision to the Youth Court, and in terms that admit of some latitude: ... There is normally a range of appropriate sentencing decisions available, and a sentence within that range cannot be said to be wrong: ….It is not sufficient for the High Court to consider that it would have made a different decision under section 24(1) to that of the Youth Court. Only if the High Court is satisfied that the original decision was wrong may it interfere."
Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 24(1)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (C and Another) v Sheffield Youth Court; Regina (N) v Sheffield Youth Court Times, 03 February 2003
23 Jan 2003
QBD
Stanley Burton J
Magistrates, Criminal Practice
In each case, youths had been committed to the Crown Court for trial but complained that the Youth Court should have dealt with the cases, and sought judicial review of the youth court decision. Held: The test for a review of a decision of the youth court is whether that decision was wrong. The court is reviewing the decision, not acting as an appellate court. Here, the statue required the youth court to commit to the crown court where the stated conditions were satisfied. Those conditions were that the offence was listed in the 2000 Act, and that the powers under subsection (3) of the section would arise. The Youth court must consider the sentencing powers of the crown court, and guidance for their use.
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 24(1) - Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 91(3) 165(1)
1 Cites


 
Regina v Sallis Times, 07 February 2003
29 Jan 2003
CACD
Holland, Hallett JJ
Magistrates, Criminal Sentencing
The magistrates had made an error in the form of committal, when remitting the defendant to the Crown Court for sentence. Held: The error had the effect of limiting the Crown Court to the powers which had been available to the magistrates. The statement of committal under section 4 had failed to include, as was required, a statement that the magistrates were of the opinion that they also had power to commit the defendant under section 3(2). This had the effect of disapplying section 5 in the crown Court.
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 4

 
Regina (Mudie and Another) v Dover Magistrates' Court and Another Times, 07 February 2003; [2003] EWCA Civ 237
4 Feb 2003
CA
Phillips of Worth Matravers, MR, Brooke, Laws LJJ
Customs and Excise, Magistrates, Legal Aid, Human Rights
The applicants wished to challenge the confiscation of their goods by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise on their return to Dover. They appealed the refusal of Legal Aid. Held: The Convention guaranteed the right to legal assistance for someone charged with a criminal offence and who could not afford representation, but these condemnation proceedings were civil not criminal. The claimants argued that a finding against them involved a finding of reprehensible behaviour (Engel), but this mistook the court's function which was to decide whether the goods were liable to seizure.
Access to Justice Act 1999 12(2) - Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 Sch 3 para 6 - European Convention on Human Rights 6
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Shufflebottom v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Times, 13 February 2003; [2003] EWHC 246 (Admin)
7 Feb 2003
QBD
Mackay J
Police, Animals, Magistrates
The magistrates were asked to make a finding against a dog which was kept within their jurisdiction, but where the incident upon which the application was based, had occurred in Scotland. The appellant contended it should have been heard in Scotland because of section 52 of the 1980 Act. Held: The 1871 Act conferred a civil jurisdiction, and was related to its care. The section was intended to encourage dangerous dogs to be restrained properly. The case fell within th esecond or third categories of section 52, and the magistrates had jurisdiction.
Dogs Act 1871 2 - Magistrates Courts Act 1980 52
[ Bailii ]
 
Clark (Procurator Fiscal, Kirkcaldy) v Kelly Times, 12 February 2003; [2003] UKPC 14; Gazette, 01 May 2003; [2003] UKPC D1; [2003] UKHRR 1167; [2003] 1 All ER 1106; [2003] 2 WLR 1586; 2003 SCCR 194; 2003 GWD 7-164; [2003] HRLR 17; 2003 SC (PC) 77; [2004] 1 AC 681; 14 BHRC 369; 2003 SLT 308
11 Feb 2003
PC
Bingham of Cornhill, Hoffmann, Hope of Craighead, Hutton, Rodger of Earsferry LL
Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Magistrates
PC (The High Court of Justiciary) The minuter challenged the role of the legal adviser to the district courts in Scotland, and as to his independence. Held: The legal adviser was not subject to the same system of appointments as the justices. However the system provided for a right of appeal (section 175) on questions of law, which would cover the role played by the adviser, and also the wider power under section 193 would allow general redress, in circumstances involving a possible miscarriage of justice. The adviser should make known to the parties, the legal advice he had given in private, and opportunity for comment allowed.
Scotland Act 1998 Sch 6 33 - Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 175 193 - European Convention on Human Rights ^.1
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ PC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ PC ]
 
Director of Public Prosecutions v North Durham Justices [2003] EWHC 409 (Admin)
21 Feb 2003
Admn

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Offences Against the Person Act 1861 20
[ Bailii ]
 
C, Regina (on the Application of) v Sussex (Central) Magistrates' Court [2003] EWHC 1157 (Admin)
30 Apr 2003
Admn

Criminal Sentencing, Magistrates

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Wandsworth, Regina (on the Application Of) v South Western Magistrates Court [2003] EWHC 1158 (Admin)
1 May 2003
Admn

Health and Safety, Magistrates
The HSE sought answers from the company, and prosecuted when it got none. They sought judicial review of the magistrates decision to refuse a case stated. Held: The answers sought were under a section which disallowed any prosecution of the person answering, and therefore the section was to be construed widely. As such there was a clear power to require answers, including answers in writing. The case was remitted to be heard by a different tribunal.
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 20(2)(j) - Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority) Regulations 1989
[ Bailii ]
 
Shanmuganathan, Regina (on the Application Of) v South Western Magistrates' Court [2003] EWHC 1329 (Admin)
19 May 2003
Admn

Crime, Magistrates

[ Bailii ]
 
Nwankwo, Regina (on the Application Of) v Hendon Magistrates' Court [2003] EWHC 1659 (Admin)
4 Jun 2003
Admn

Local Government, Magistrates

[ Bailii ]
 
Morgan, Regina (on the Application Of) v Justices of Dyfed Powys Magistrates' Court [2003] EWHC 1568 (Admin)
18 Jun 2003
Admn

Police, Magistrates
Money had been taken by the Police, but after the applicants had been acquitted, they sought it to be returned. Their action was struck out after long delays. They aplied to the Magistrates who turned down the application. Held: The money should be returned " . . . once it is clear that the claimant is entitled to possession of the money, then he must, within the terms of the 1897 Act, be treated as the person appearing to the court to be the owner thereof. It does not, of course, mean that he is necessarily the owner; and there is an opportunity for someone who claims to be the owner to take proceedings within six months against the person in possession of the property." The magistrates had been wrong to concentrate on possible but unproven misbehaviour, and the money should be returned.
Police (Property) Act 1897 1(1)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Steward v Director of Public Prosecutions Times, 25 September 2003; [2003] EWHC 2251 (Admin)
30 Jul 2003
QBD
Maurice Kay, Crane JJ
Criminal Practice, Magistrates
Magistrates announced that there was no case to answer, but then agreed evidence was put before them which clearly undermined the basis of that decision. Held: It was open to the magistrates to correct their mistake immediately. The appellant's contention was highly technical. An error had been agreed by the defendant's solicitor and admitted by the Magistrates, and the Essex Justices case did not apply.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Ward v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Epsom and St Helier NHS Trust [2003] EWCA Civ 1152; Times, 02 September 2003; Gazette, 02 October 2003
30 Jul 2003
CA
Lord Justice Schiemann Lord Justice Latham
Health, Magistrates, Police
The claimant sought damages for the circumstances of her having been taken into custody. A magistrate had issued a warrant to require her to be removed to a place of safety. The warrant named a social worker and doctor to accompany the officer. The warrant was executed but the social worker and doctor were not those named. Held: Magistrates could issue a warrant without naming the social worker or doctor who would be required under the section to accompany the police officer. If so, such workers could be selected as appropriate. The addition of the names to the warrant was to be read as a restriction on the way the warrant was to be executed, and the officer could not assume that the warrant would have been issued without names or with alternative names. The warrant itself was valid, but the mode of execution was not.
Mental Health Act 1983 135(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Shirzadeh v Maidstone Magistrates' Court [2003] EWHC 2216 (Admin)
21 Aug 2003
Admn

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
C v Sunderland Youth Court [2003] EWHC 2385 (Admin)
9 Oct 2003
Admn

Criminal Sentencing, Magistrates

Crime and Disorder Act 1998 1
[ Bailii ]
 
The Chief Constable of Lancashire v Potter [2003] EWHC 2272 (Admin); Gazette, 06 November 2003
13 Oct 2003
Admn
Lord Justice Auld Mr Justice Goldring
Magistrates
The claimant appealed refusal of an Anti-Social Behaviour order by the magistrates. The respondent was a street prostitute in Preston. The magistrates had declined to aggregate her behaviour with that of others to find that it caused harrassment alarm or distress to a criminal standard of proof. Held: The court is being asked to decide something inherently speculative. The word 'likely' had to be construed to a lesser standard of rigour than, for example, in re H. It was important not to confuse the sections requiring evidence that the respondent had caused a particular effect when asking itself whether such an effect was likely. The standard remained the criminal one of being sure. It was wrong to look for behaviour to a standard not set down in the Act. "It is a question of fact whether any individual prostitute, by her contribution to that activity and its overall effect, has caused a "problem" which is caught by section 1(1)(a). Proof of such a fact need not depend on the attribution to her of proved "aggravated conduct" of other prostitutes that might, considered on its own, constitute harassment, alarm or distress. " The appeal succeeded, and the case was remitted for reconsideration.
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 1(1)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Crown Prosecution Service, Greater Manchester) v Bolton Justices Times, 07 November 2003; [2003] EWHC 2697 (Admin); [2004] 1 WLR 835
31 Oct 2003
QBD
Kennedy LJ, Royce J
Evidence, Magistrates, Human Rights, Criminal Practice
The magistrates had been taking a deposition, and ordered police officers to be excluded from court. Held: The witness sought not to have to answer questions on the ground that he would be incriminated by his answers. Magistrates should not accept a claim for privilege without investigation. It was insufficient also to accept that this was claimed solely on the grounds of legal advice. The proceedings of taking the deposition were in open court, and the exclusion of those charged with investigating crime was an irregularity.
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 Sch3 P-4
[ Bailii ]
 
Kendall, Regina (on the Application of) v Selby Magistrates' Court [2003] EWHC 2909 (Admin)
13 Nov 2003
Admn

Magistrates

[ Bailii ]

 
 Vehicle and Operator Services Agency v George Jenkins Transport Ltd; Admn 20-Nov-2003 - [2003] EWHC 2879 (Admin); Times, 05 December 2003

 
 Regina (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Camberwell Green Youth Court ex parte C W K and A; QBD 5-Dec-2003 - (2004) 168 JP 157; (2004) 168 JPN 233; Times, 09 January 2004; [2003] EWHC 3217 (Admin)
 
H v Balham Youth Court and Another [2003] EWHC 3267 (Admin)
10 Dec 2003
Admn

Criminal Practice, Magistrates, Children

[ Bailii ]
 
Verderers of the New Forest v Young and others Times, 29 January 2004
17 Dec 2003
QBD
Rose LJ, Jackson J
Land, Magistrates
The jurisdiction given to the magistrates under the order was one concurrent with that of the Verderers. The 1877 Act had given the verderers power to impose fines which could be collected summarily, and that gave jurisdiction to the magistracy.
New Forest (Confirmation of the Bylaws of the Verderers of the New Forest) Order 1999 (1999 No 2134) - New Forest Act 1877 25(4)

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