Baron Huddleston said that: ‘objections and defects in the form of procuring the appearance of a party charged will be cured by appearance.’
Hawkins J said: ‘The information, which is in the nature of an indictment, of necessity precedes the process; and it is only after the information is laid, that the question as to the particular form and nature of the process can properly arise. Process is not essential to the jurisdiction of the justices to hear and adjudicate. It is but the proceeding adopted to compel the appearance of the accused to answer the information already duly laid, without which no hearing in the nature of a trial could take place (unless under special statutory enactment).’
Baron Huddleston, Hawkins J
(1879) 4 QBD 614
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – North Wales Police v Anglesey Justices CA 16-Jul-2008
A dog bit a constable. The defendant said that the police had wrongly begun proceedings as an information, rather than by way of a complaint, and that they were a nullity.
Held: Rule 2.1 of the 1981 Rules is expressed in terms which show that . .
Approved – Regina v Manchester Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Hill; Hill v Anderton HL 1982
The House was asked whether section 127 was satisfied where the information was laid within 6 months from the date of the alleged offence but was not considered by a magistrate, and no summons was issued, until after the expiration of the time . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 July 2021; Ref: scu.272264
