The defendant appealed against the refusal of the Justices to deal with his formal committal to the Crown court in his absence when he was unwell. The magistrates had distinguished between sections 6(1) and 6(2) as to whether the accused was required to be present.
Held: The distinction was false: ‘when the Act deals in section 4 with the tendering of the evidence before the Justices it is doing more than simply using that expression to refer to a discrete and separate part of the committal proceedings. The overall structure of the Act is using that expression, in my judgement, to refer to committal proceedings as a whole. Even if that is not right it would be wholly artificial to think that Parliament would have consciously made any provision in section 6(2) preventing action in the absence of the accused by simply by omitting any such provision in section 6(2). Particularly in a section 6(2) case the tendering of the evidence, and the consideration of whether the accused should be committed, is part and parcel of a single operation.’
Judges:
Buxton LJ, Collins J
Citations:
Times 02-Feb-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 41, [1999] Crim LR 734, (1999) 163 JP 420, [1999] 2 Cr App R 24
Links:
Statutes:
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 4(4) 6(2)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Magistrates, Criminal Practice
Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139305
