Viscount Reading CJ: ‘But, even though we had come to the conclusion that the warrant of commitment was bad on the face of it, as this is a case of commitment after conviction we are again not only entitled but bound to look at the conviction in order to see whether there is more than a mere technical defect in the commitment. On behalf of the applicant it has been strenuously contended that we are dealing with the liberty of the subject, but we are also administering justice, and we have to see whether or not there is any ground for alleging that the applicant has not been properly convicted and committed. Rex v Hawkins and Rex v. Taylor are authorities which abundantly support the proposition that in considering the validity of the committal the conviction must be looked at. . . Those two authorities clearly support the principle that we are entitled, and I think bound to look at the conviction in the present case . . .’
Viscount Reading CJ, Lord Reading
[1917] 2 KB 254
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Attorney-General v Leveller Magazine Ltd HL 1-Feb-1979
The appellants were magazines and journalists who published, after committal proceedings, the name of a witness, a member of the security services, who had been referred to as Colonel B during the hearing. An order had been made for his name not to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Prisons
Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.182808