The police officer had been accused of an offence. The case was discharged under the section at committal. The Commissioner sought to commence disciplinary proceedings on the same evidence.
Held: The tests of the two sets of hearings were different. The magistrates had been asked to see whether there was sufficient evidence to justify putting him on a criminal trial. The case had been dismissed by the magistrates, but that was not a finding of innocence under s104, and no double jeopardy arose. The double jeopardy rule has no application save to other courts of competent jurisdiction.
Judges:
Mr Justice Scott Baker, Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Simon Brown
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Civ 4
Links:
Statutes:
The Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985 7, Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 6, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 104
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina (on the application of Whitehead and Daglish) v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Admn 2001
Criminal charges against the officers had been stayed. They subsequently faced disciplinary proceedings.
Held: An acquittal is a finding or determination that a defendant is not guilty of an offence. A stay does not involve such a finding. . .
Cited – Connelly v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1964
Plea of Autrefois Acquit is Narrow in Scope
The defendant had been tried for and acquitted of murder. The prosecution then sought to have him tried for robbery out of the same alleged facts. The House considered his plea of autrefois convict.
Held: The majority identified a narrow . .
Cited – Regina v Police Complaints Board ex parte Madden and Rhone 1983
Double jeopardy, properly understood, is best described in the phrase ‘No man should be tried twice for the same offence’. The court emphasised the word ‘tried’. . .
Cited – Regina v Manchester City Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte S Nelson CACD 1977
Challenge was made to the institution of fresh committal proceedings following the applicant’s discharge at an earlier committal hearing when, the prosecution’s application for an adjournment having been refused, no evidence was offered against him. . .
Cited – Brooks v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another PC 2-Mar-1994
(Jamaica) The DPP successfully applied for a voluntary bill after the resident magistrate had discharged the defendant on the ground that having heard the evidence, there was no case to answer. The challenge to the DPP’s decision to seek a voluntary . .
Cited – Ziderman v General Dental Council PC 1976
Lord Diplock said: ‘The purpose of disciplinary proceedings against a dentist who has been convicted of a criminal offence by a court of law is not to punish him a second time for the same offence but to protect the public who may come to him as . .
Cited – Regina v Statutory Committee of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain 1981
The court asked if the Latin maxim ‘nemo debit bis vexari, si constat curiae quod sit pro una et eadem causa’, or ‘nemo debet bis punire pro uno delicto’ (no one ought to be twice punished for the same offence) were relevant where criminal charges . .
Cited – Saeed v Greater London Council (Inner London Education Authority) 1985
The plaintiff had been acquitted of assaulting a child at the school. His employers nevertheless brought disciplinary proceedings alleging misconduct identical to those which had formed the basis of the previous criminal proceedings. The plaintiff . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Police, Employment
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.178804