The question before the House was whether a committal was a nullity when the magistrate had received inadmissible evidence.
Held: Committal proceedings should only be judicially reviewed in cases of ‘really substantial error leading to demonstrable injustice’. Lord Mustill stated: ‘I think it would be impossible to maintain that all errors of this kind on the part of examining magistrates must necessarily be fatal to the committal. The situation is far removed from that which existed in cases such as Rex v Gee [1936] 2 KB 442; Rex v Phillips [1939] 1 KB 63 and Rex v Wharmby (1946) 31 Cr App R 174, where the departure from the requirements of the Indictable Offences Act 1848 (11 and 12 Vict. c. 42) was so radical as to render the indictment, and hence the resulting trial, a nullity. Whatever the current state of the law about the difference between void and voidable adjudications it could not sensibly be said that in the present case the resident magistrate’s error entailed that there was no committal at all.’
[1992] 4 All ER 846, (1992) 97 Cr App R 121, [1992] 1 WLR 1220
Northern Ireland
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Whitehaven Justices ex parte Thompson Admn 9-Oct-1998
Application for certiorari to quash a decision of the Whitehaven Magistrates’ Court to commit the applicant for trial to the Crown Court on two charges: the first, conspiring to supply heroin between December 1996 and July 1997; and the second, . .
Cited – Regina v Bedwellty Justices Ex Parte Williams HL 18-Sep-1996
A decision at committal to return an accused for trial is susceptible to judicial review where committal was based solely on inadmissible evidence or was based on evidence not reasonably capable of supporting it. The committal was quashed.
The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.670948
