The court considered whether as the Court of Appeal, it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the Divisional Court’s refusal to quash an order estreating a recognisance.
Held: It did. Lord Denning MR said that ‘the matter is criminal’ if ‘the matter is one the direct outcome of which may be trial of the applicant and his possible punishment for an alleged offence.’ The recognizance was simply a bond giving rise to a civil debt with a special enforcement procedure which was also civil.
Judges:
Lord Denning MR
Citations:
[1976] QB 11
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Amand v Home Secretary and Minister of Defence of Royal Netherlands Government HL 1943
A Dutch serviceman who had been arrested for desertion and brought before a magistrate who ordered him to be handed over to the Dutch military authorities under the Allied Forces Act 1940. An application for habeas corpus was rejected by a . .
Cited by:
Doubted – Guardian News and Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court and Another CA 25-Oct-2011
The claimant newspaper sought to appeal against a refusal by the respondent to disclose papers filed in a case before it. The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal.
Held: Under the 1981 Act no appeal would lie if the . .
Doubted, but binding – Regina v Lambeth Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate ex parte McComb CA 1983
The Court found that it had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the Divisional Court’s upholding of a decision that the Director of Public Prosecutions could freely remove exhibits, lodged in the Crown Court in criminal proceedings against . .
No Longer Binding – Carr v Atkins CA 1987
The police had applied to a judge for an order under the 1984 Act requiring the applicant, a suspect in a fraud investigation, to produce documents falling within the definition of ‘special procedure documents’ under the Act. The applicants sought . .
Distinguished – In re Smalley HL 1985
Challenge by a surety to an estreatment of his recognizance was not a matter relating to a trial on indictment for the purpose of section 29(3) because it did not affect the conduct of the trial. A sensible legislative purpose can be seen for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.450436