The defendant appealed against his conviction in a private prosecution under the 1852 Act which controlled the right to set up and operate market stalls. The Act was a local Act. The court considered when magistrates should allow a private prosecution.
Held: Only the operator of the market could bring a prosecution. A summons may be issued where the offence is not an individual grievance, but is rather a matter of public policy and utility, and concerns public morals. In such a case anyone has the general power to prosecute, unless the statute gauging the offence contains some restriction or regulation limiting the right to some particular person or party.
Lord Campbell CJ said: ‘The clause on which this conviction proceeds appears to have been framed solely and exclusively for the protection and benefit of the Torquay market company . . This enactment is not for the benefit of the inhabitants of Torquay, nor of licensed hawkers, but merely for the benefit of the company, that they may be reimbursed the expenses they have incurred from purchasing the new market-place and erecting sheds and stalls, stations and other conveniences therein . . the penalty under section 31 cannot be recovered, except upon an information laid with the authority of the company.’
Judges:
Lord Campbell CJ
Citations:
[1855] 19 JP 515
Statutes:
Cited by:
Cited – Ewing, Regina (on the Application of) v Davis Admn 2-Jul-2007
The court considered whether the District Judge had been correct to refuse to issue summonses for private prosecutions where there was a suggestion that only a private dispute at stake.
Held: It ‘never was any requirement that a private . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.267548