Magistrates having been told previously not to sentence for wilful failure to pay fine or taxes in the absence of the defendant who can give evidence, and continuing to do so, must face an order to pay the costs of appeal personally.
Times 26-May-1999
England and Wales
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.85240
The claimant challenged a production order made by the magistrates in respect of journalists’ material. They complained that the application had used secret evidence not disclosed to it, and that the judge had not given adequate reasons to support the decision. The poice were investigating an offence under the 1989 Act.
Held: It was common ground that neither the Civil nor the Criminal Procedure Rules contain any provisions governing an application under section 9 and schedule 1 of PACE. Paragraph 7 of schedule 1 requires the hearing to be conducted inter partes, but apart from that the only procedural requirement is that they be conducted in accordance with common law principles of fairness and the requirements of Article 6 of the ECHR.
The procedure adopted in this case was unlawful: ‘there was a failure to observe a fundamental principle of law bearing directly on the fairness of the proceedings, a matter which the court should be very slow to condone. Moreover, however carefully the judge considered the secret evidence, that can be no substitute for allowing B Sky B to challenge it, for the reasons given by Lord Kerr in Al Rawi.’
Moore-Bick LJ, Bean J
[2011] EWHC 3451 (Admin), [2012] 3 WLR 78, 2012 GWD 21-432, 2012 SCL 635, 2012 SCCR 562, [2012] 4 All ER 600, [2012] QB 785, [2012] HRLR 24
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 9, Official Secrets Act 1989 1
England and Wales
Cited – Malik v Manchester Crown Court and others; Re A Admn 19-Jun-2008
The claimant was a journalist writing about terrorism. He had interviewed a man with past connections with Al-Qaeda, and he now objected to a production order for documents obtained by him in connecion with his writings. The court had acted on . .
Cited – Regina v Davis HL 18-Jun-2008
The defendant had been tried for the murder of two men by shooting them at a party. He was identified as the murderer by three witnesses who had been permitted to give evidence anonymously, from behind screens, because they had refused, out of fear, . .
Cited – Al Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others CA 4-May-2010
Each claimant had been captured and mistreated by the US government, and claimed the involvement in and responsibility for that mistreatment by the respondents. The court was asked whether a court in England and Wales, in the absence of statutory . .
Cited – Al Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others SC 13-Jul-2011
The claimant pursued a civil claim for damages, alleging complicity of the respondent in his torture whilst in the custody of foreign powers. The respondent sought that certain materials be available to the court alone and not to the claimant or the . .
Cited – Regina v Central Criminal Court Ex Parte Bright; Regina v Same, Ex Parte Rusbridger QBD 21-Jul-2000
An order was made for a journalist to disclose to the police material disclosed to him in connection with a prosecution under the Official Secrets Act. The journalist appealed the order, on the basis that it was in effect an order that he . .
Appeal from – British Sky Broadcasting Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 12-Mar-2014
The court was asked as to the powers of Magistrates hearing an application for a search warrant to receive excluded or special procedure material which had not been disclosed to the respondent. The court had overturned an order made by the district . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.459730
The applicant had had his premises searched. He sought to challenge the basis on which search warrant had been granted. He argued that under the Convention, it was necessary for the magistrates to provide a written record of the reasons for granting the warrant.
Held: Where the information laid was itself sufficient to account for the warrant a magistrate could be assumed to have acted upon it, and no further reasons were required to be noted. Warrants were often issued under conditions where such a requirement would be unreasonable. Here the magistrate would only have repeated the contents of the information. Where a magistrate elicited further information from the officer which affected the decision, it was necessary for that to be recorded.
Lord Woolf CJ said: ‘Information may contain details of an informer which it would be contrary to the public interest to reveal. The information may also contain other statements to which public interest immunity might apply. But, subject to that, if a person who is in the position of this claimant asks perfectly sensibly for a copy of the information, then speaking for myself I can see no objection to a copy of that information being provided. The citizen, in my judgment, should be entitled to be able to assess whether an information contains the material which justifies the issue of a warrant. This information contained the necessary evidence to justify issuing the warrant.’
Lord Woolf of Barnes LCJ, Hallett, Stanley Burnton JJ
Times 28-Nov-2002, Gazette 30-Jan-2003, [2002] EWHC 2568 (Admin), [2003] 1 WLR 752
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 23(3), European Convention on Human Rights Art 6 Art 8, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 8 15 16
England and Wales
Cited – AB and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Huddersfield Magistrates’ Court and Another Admn 10-Apr-2014
The claimants challenged the lawfuness of search warrants issued by the respondent court. They were solicitors, and were related to a person suspected of murder who was thought to have fled the country. The officers were looking for evidence that . .
Cited – Haralambous, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Court at St Albans and Another SC 24-Jan-2018
The appellant challenged by review the use of closed material first in the issue of a search warrant, and subsequently to justify the retention of materials removed during the search.
Held: The appeal failed. No express statutory justification . .
Cited – Haralambous v St Albans Crown Court and Another Admn 22-Apr-2016
This judicial review raised for express decision whether a person whose premises have been searched and whose property seized under a search warrant must have enough information grounding the warrant to judge its lawfulness and the retention of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.402518
The several applicants had been accused of offences under which the cases were to be transferred direct to the Crown Court for trial. The charges were later amended, with alternative offences preferred for which similar procedures might be and were applied. The defendants challenged the application of the new procedures other than to the initial charges. Two offences had been committed before the Act.
Held: Proceedings against a defendant did not become proceedings in respect of a new charge as a result of prosecutorial substitution. The substituted cases were therefore properly dealt with under the new procedure. The duty of the court under section 51 of the 1998 Act to send a case to the Crown Court does not preclude it from exercising its jurisdiction to stay proceedings as an abuse of the process, though it will very rarely be appropriate to do so.
Lord Justice Auld and Mr Justice Gage
Times 04-Jun-2002, [2002] EWHC 919 (Admin), [2002] 2 Cr App R 40, [2002] 1 WLR 3073
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 51
England and Wales
Cited – Rex v Norfolk Justices and Another ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions 1950
The justices, having convicted a defendant, purported first to commit him to quarter sessions for sentence but the case was not one to which the sub-section applied.
Held: The committal was a nullity and the justices were entitled to proceed . .
Cited – Craik, Chief Constable of Northumbria Police, Regina (on The Application of) v Newcastle Upon Tyne Magistrates’ Court Admn 30-Apr-2010
The claimant a retired Chief Constable sought judicial review of a decision to commit him for trial on a charge of unlawful imprisonment. The suspect and now prosecutor had been arrested and held in custody, but without the necessary timely review . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.172210
Magistrates who had dismissed a prosecution for the failure of the prosecutor to attend court and without any consideration of the merits, were able to hear a subsequent summons issued on same facts.
Times 18-May-1998, Times 18-May-1998, Gazette 10-Jun-1998
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 15
England and Wales
Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.80338
Challenge to the refusal by the magistrates’ court to state a case for the opinion of this court.
[2012] EWHC 3827 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471243
No further appeal from judge lies after a final decision on the case stated by justices.
Times 26-Nov-1997
England and Wales
Updated: 11 November 2022; Ref: scu.83326
The claimants sought to have search warrants issued under the 1987 Act set aside, saying that they had been procured by non-disclosure and misrepresentation.
Held: The search warrants were set aside: ‘the fact that one or more suspects have already had an opportunity to collude does not necessarily mean that they should be given a further opportunity to do so, especially where collusion has already occurred.’
Sir John Thomas P, Silber J
[2012] EWHC 2254 (Admin), [2013] Lloyd’s Rep FC 132, [2013] 1 WLR 1634
Criminal Justice Act 1987 2(4)
England and Wales
Main judgment – Rawlinson and Hunter Trustees Sa and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Central Criminal Court and Another Admn 15-Nov-2012
. .
Cited – Lord Hanningfield of Chelmsford v Chief Constable of Essex Police QBD 15-Feb-2013
The claimant sought damages alleging unlawful arrest and search and detention. He had served a term of imprisonment for having made false expenses claims to the House of Lords. This raid occurred on his release. The arrest was planned and made to . .
Cited – Mills and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Sussex Police and Another Admn 25-Jul-2014
The claimants faced criminal charges involving allegations of fraud and corruption. They now challenged by judicial review a search and seizure warrant saying that it was unlawful. A restraint order had been made against them and they had complied . .
Cited – McCann v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 21-Aug-2015
Appeal by case stated against conviction for obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty. The appellant had been protesting. She, correctly, thought the land to be a rivate highway. The police officer had thought it a public hghway and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463360
An Act of Parliament not printed, ordains, that the quarter-sessions to be held for the county of Anglesey, shall he held at Beaumarrice in that county, and not elsewhere ; indictments of felony were found at Newburgh in the said county against several persons at a quarter-sessions held there after the said act; the justices of peace proceeded to take the said indictment although the said act was shewed to them, exemplified under the great seal, before the indictments were found : resolved for law, by all the judges, that these indictnents were void; by reason of the said negative words : and this offence being complained of in the Star-chamber, every one of those justices of peace was fined 5l. Note the moderation of that age in settirig fines in that court. The 25 H. 8, cap. 21, has negative words, that dispensations for benefices shall be granted by the Archibishop of Canterbury, and not otherwise : yet the King’s power is not excluded ; for, by those negative words, it is only intended to exclude all papal dispensations.
Affirmative words in a statute do not take away the common law. The justices of peace may hold their quarter-sessions where they think fit in the county, if they are not restrained as above.
6 E 6 1 Cr 275 3 Mar Dyer, [1220] EngR 550, (1220-1623) Jenk 212, (1220) 145 ER 144 (C)
England and Wales
Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.461462
The defendant motorist was accused of driving with excess alcohol. There had been a difference in readings between two samples taken within a short time of each other.
Held: He should have been allowed an adjournment to bring his own expert witness to explain the discrepancy. A breath test taken only a short time after the one relied upon had produced a result which was lawful. The cases did not mean that it was not possible to contradict the findings of a blood test.
Tuckey LJ, Moses J
Times 02-Mar-2000, [2000] RTR 143
England and Wales
Cited – Nelson v Thompson 1985
. .
Cited – Breckon v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 22-Aug-2007
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol.
Held: There was no requirement that the prosecutor should produce the results of the roadside breath test in evidence, and the breathalyser was of the approved . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.84574
Legal Aid was properly unavailable for community charge default proceedings. No criminal charge was involved.
Gazette 17-Jul-1996, Times 15-Jul-1996
England and Wales
Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.80416
The claimant sought to challenge search warrants issued by the respondents. The warrants were criticised as being too widely drawn, and in breach of the 1984 Act. Criticism was also made of the implementation of the searches, in the use of excess numbers of officers, and the taking of images of hard disks, thus acquiring privileged information about other clients of the accountant claimants.
Held: The imaging of the disks was less intrusive, and no different in principal from the seizure of a ledger book. The officers also questioned staff members using a pre-prepared questionnaire. The use of that should have been raised with the judge issuing the warrant. However no remedy was to be granted save for another admittedly unlawful search.
The Commissioners’ power to seize ‘documents’ when entering with a warrant under paragraph 10(3)(b) of Schedule 11 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 could extend to the physical removal of computers. ‘Documents’ were defined in section 96(1) of that Act as ‘anything in which information is recorded’, a very similar definition to that in section 114(2) of the Finance Act 2008. The court accepted a submission that: ‘A computer hard disk is a single storage entity which falls within the definition of a ‘document’ in section 96(1) of the 1994 Act because it is something ‘in which information of any kind is recorded’.
Lord Justice Kennedy, and Mrs Justice Hallett
[2002] EWHC 40 (Admin), [2002] STC 267, [2003] BVC 3, [2002] BTC 5605, [2002] STI 112, [2002] Crim LR 504
Vallue Added Tax Act 1994 72, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 15(6)(b
England and Wales
Cited – H, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioners of Inland Revenue Admn 23-Oct-2002
The appellant sought judicial review of the seizure by the respondents of computers found on its premises in the course of executing warrants under the Act, even though the computers might contain other matters not relevant to any investigation.
Cited – Glenn and Co (Essex) Ltd), Regina (on The Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs Admn 18-Jun-2010
The company objected to the search of its offices and removal by the defendant of its computers, the officers having entered without any warrant purporting to use powers under the 1989 Act.
Held: The request for judicial review failed. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.167465
The defendant sought judicial review of a decision by the magistrates to adjourn their trial for speeding to allow the prosecutor to re-open its case and cure a deficiency in the evidence produced.
Pitchford LJ, Supperstone J
[2011] EWHC 1802 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.441964
The prosecutor appealed against a finding of no case to answer after it had not been allowed to re-open the case to bring additional identification evidence.
Richards J
[2011] EWHC 82 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440226
Challenges to search warrants – whether sufficient basis
Ouseley, McCombe JJ
[2011] EWHC 3385 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.566253
Stanley Burnton J said that he had no doubt that the appropriate procedure for challenging decisions relating to liability orders is by way of case stated: ‘ the appropriate procedure to challenge the decision of the justices of 28 May 2003 was by appeal by way of case stated. This is the normal procedure for challenging errors of law by justices. It has a number of advantages, not the least of which is that the discipline of a case stated normally ensures that the High Court has before it a statement by the justices of the issues they had to decide, the evidence before them, their findings of fact and the reasons for their decision. If the case stated is defective (because, for example, the justices’ statement of their findings of fact is ambiguous), it may be remitted to them for amendment: see the Practice Direction to Part 52 at 52PD.76. The reasons of the justices in the present case are relatively informal, and do not include what I would expect to see in a case stated. Furthermore, in an appeal by way of case stated, this Court is able to make any order that the lower court might have made: see CPR Part 52.10 (1). The powers of this court on judicial review are more limited: it can quash the lower court’s order and order it to make another order only if that other order is the only one properly open to it.’
Mr Justice Burnton
[2004] EWHC 1800 (Admin)
England and Wales
Cited – Kenya Aid Programme v Sheffield City Council Admn 22-Jan-2013
The claimant challenged a decision that it was liable for non domestic rates in respect of some commercial units, on the basis that the use by the charity was not itself charitable.
Held: ‘there is no reason for limiting the ambit of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.200305
Langstaff J
[2010] EWHC 3412 (Admin)
Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 24(1), Powers of the Criminal Courts Sentencing Act 2000
England and Wales
Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427935
The applicant had been disabled in an accident, had bought and sold various properties, and used the proceeds of sale to repay various debts. He now sought judicial review of an order for his committal to prison for non-payment of Council Tax.
Held: The appeal succeeded.
King J
[2009] EWHC 1857 (Admin), [2010] RVR 6
Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.417126
Scott Baker LJ, Cranston J
[2009] EWHC 2831 (Admin)
England and Wales
Cited – Michael v Gowland 1977
The case stated procedure has a strict requirement that it be begun within 21 days. There is no discretion to extend that time limit. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.377892
Application for judicial review of refusal by magistrates to issue a summons.
[2009] EWHC 2571 (Admin), [2010] 1 Cr App Rep 13
England and Wales
Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.377207
[2006] EWHC 1374 (Admin)
England and Wales
Cited – Perinpanathan, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court and Another CA 4-Feb-2010
The appellant’s daughter had been stopped entering the country with andpound;150,000 in cash. The police sought an order for its forfeiture, suspecting a link with terrorism. The magistrates found no evidence of such, and declined to make the order, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.376250
Application for judicial review of the decision of the district judge, sitting at Bath and Wansdyke Magistrates’ Court, not to order a fact-finding exercise rather than a trial.
[2009] EWHC 759 (Admin), [2009] MHLR 71
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 11(1), Mental Health Act 1983 37(3)
England and Wales
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347435
The claimant sought judicial review of a decision by the respondents that a statement he had sworn in connection with a criminal prosecution should be admissible in forfeiture proceedings now brought by the police following his conviction.
Sir Anthony May, Dobbs J
[2009] EWHC 1546 (Admin)
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347436
The defendant faced trial for driving whilst over the prescribed alcohol limit. On a pre-trial review, the prosecution had applied for the evidence of the analyst to be given under the hearsay provisions, on the basis that she was living abroad. She had not been warned and it was not reasonably practicable to secure her attendance. At trial, the deputy district judge considered that he was bound by that ruling and refused to hear further argument on the issue of admissibility. One aspect of the case stated was whether the district judge was correct.
Held: The court allowed the appeal, applying sections 8A and 8B of the 1980 Act. There was no question of the pre-trial ruling binding the deputy judge in relation to the trial. At the trial very different considerations obtained compared with the pre-trial hearing, in particular relating to the attendance by the analyst and securing her evidence since – by then – the prosecution could well have obtained her attendance.
Leveson LJ, Sweeney J
[2009] EWHC 440 (Admin), [2009] 1 WLR 2530, (2009) 173 JP 274
Road Traffic Act 2006 5(2)(a), Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 8A 8B
England and Wales
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions, Regina (on the Application of) v Chorley Justices and Forrest Admn 8-Jun-2006
The prosecutor applied for an order to require the magistrates to state a case. He faced a charge of driving with excess alcohol. He pleaded not guilty. There were several adjournments, and a considerable delay. At the trial, and with no . .
Cited – Jones v South East Surrey Local Justice Area Admn 12-Mar-2010
The defendant sought judicial review of a decision of the magistrates to adjourn a case where, on the day before, a differently constitued bench had refused an adjournment requested by the prosecution. On the first occasion the prosecutor had not . .
Cited – Bielecki v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 23-Aug-2011
The court had delivered a draft judgment which counsel said was based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the case she had presented. Counsel now suggested that the matter should be referred to a two judge divisional court. That was refused. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.323733
Appeal from conviction for driving with excess alcohol. The driver complained that the police had destroyed CCTV evidence of the administration of the statutory warning on his being tested. The appeal failed. The defendant had given no indication that he might wish to challenge the warning.
[2008] EWHC 2788 (Admin), (2009) 173 JP 41
Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a) 7(7)
England and Wales
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278425
Justices were right to say that they would ‘take no real notice’ of counsel’s irregularity.
Times 25-Jan-1994
England and Wales
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.87251
The Crown Prosecution Service was in the process of pursuing a prosecution when the private prosecutor sought to bring a prosecution for a serious offence arising out of the same facts. There would be potentially concurrent prosecutions.
Held: Magistrates were not wrong to disallow a private prosecution in addition to crown prosecution. A private prosecutor does not have the unfettered right to a trial. Kennedy LJ said that on the question of the relevant considerations, when deciding whether to issue a summons in such a case: ‘The magistrate should have regard to all of the relevant circumstances of which he is aware . . . such as whether the incident giving rise to the information which he is considering has already been investigated by a responsible prosecuting authority which is pursuing what it considers to be the appropriate charges against the same proposed defendant.’
Kennedy LJ, Bell J
Independent 09-Jul-1993, Times 14-Sep-1993, [1994] QB 340
Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985 6(1)
England and Wales
Cited – Charlson, Regina (on the Application of) v Guildford Magistrates’ Court and others Admn 11-Sep-2006
The CPS had discontinued a prosecution. The magistrates were then asked to issue a summons for a private prosecution. The private prosecutor appealed against the refusal to issue the summons. A second summons was requested from a different . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.87326
The defendant had written to the court to request an adjournment. The case proceeded in his absence.
Held: Justices have a broad discretion on the re-opening case after a conviction had been entered in the Defendant’s absence. The defendant retained a right of appeal under s108. The absence was the defendant’s entire responsibility. The court had shown respect for the convenience of witnesses, and a desire to show that the defendant had tested the limits of the court’s patience.
Henry LJ
Times 16-Jul-1996, (1996) 160 JP 613
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 142
England and Wales
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.87435
The company appealed a notice requiring them to abate noise. They failed, but the effect was to extend the time for compliance by six months. The authority sought their costs since they had upheld the notice.
Sir George Newman
[2008] EWHC 2164 (Admin)
Environmental Protection Act 1990 80
England and Wales
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276531
The court considered the practice of hearing submissions from the media in relation to reporting restrictions.
Held: Thomas LJ rejected the submission that, in conducting the Re S balancing exercise the Court should have regard to the public profile of the appellant: ‘That is because it is fundamental that all persons are equal before the law of England and Wales, as embodied in our common law, our legislation and the Conventions to which this party (sic) has subscribed . . No person in this country can enjoy a different status because he holds a public position. It is important to stress that.’
Brooke LJ, Thomas LJ
[2008] EWHC 854 (Admin)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/854.html 39(5)
England and Wales
See Also – Crawford v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 4-Feb-2008
. .
Cited – Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 4) Admn 4-Feb-2009
In an earlier judgment, redactions had been made relating to reports by the US government of its treatment of the claimant when held by them at Guantanamo bay. The claimant said he had been tortured and sought the documents to support his defence of . .
Cited – Child X (Residence and Contact- Rights of Media Attendance) (Rev 2) FD 14-Jul-2009
The father applied to the court to have the media excluded from the hearing into the residence and contact claims relating to his daughter.
Held: It was for the party seeking such an order to justify it. In deciding whether or not to exclude . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.267080
Whether the court had been correct to allow hearsay evidence from a doctor who had attended the defendant in the police cells but who had not attended court.
[2007] EWHC 2886 (Admin)
Cited – Regina v EED CACD 28-May-2010
A witness had been warned to attend court, but had not served with an order and did not attend. The defendant appealed against his conviction saying that her evidence should not have been read to the jury. He had faced allegations of sexual abuse of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261933
Challenge to order transferring case to crown court for sentencing.
Mitting J
[2007] EWHC 2896 (Admin)
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261931
Appeal by defendant against decision of magistrates to adjourn trial to allow attendance of prosecution witness.
[2007] EWHC 2005 (Admin)
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.259205
A rostering scheme for Justices was lawful, but the particular letter used in this case was invalid.
Gazette 13-Jan-1993
England and Wales
Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.86186
The claimant had requested the magistrates to revisit their decision as to his disqualification from caring for animals
[2007] EWHC 637 (Admin)
Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 142, Protection of Animals Act 1911 1
England and Wales
Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.251154
The defendant appealed against his conviction under the Act, saying that the proceedings had been issued late. The issue was the calculation of the date when proceedings were begun.
Held: There was no justification for reading the wording of the two Acts differently despite the extended time limit allowed by the 1967 Act. The time limit expired over a weekend, but the complaint was received by fax. An information was laid by fax at the point where it could have been read: ‘the essential concept running through all these authorities is that the information should be made available to the justices, or the clerk to the justice, within time. This will be so in relation to postal delivery when it can properly be inferred that it has been received, whether opened or not; and as far as transmissions by fax or other electronic means are concerned, that will be when it can properly be inferred that the information is retrievable, whether retrieved in fact or not. ‘ On that basis the appeal was denied.
Latham LJ, Davis J
Times 11-May-2007, [2007] EWHC 614 (Admin)
Forestry Act 1967 17(1), Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 127(1)
England and Wales
Cited – Rex v Willace 1797
The commencement of a prosecution was held to be ‘the information and proceeding before the magistrate’. . .
Cited – Price v Humphries 1958
The court was asked whether or not the prosecution had proved that the relevant proceedings had been ‘instituted’ by or with the consent of the minister or other authorised agent as required by section 53(1) of the National Insurance Act 1946.
Cited – Regina v Manchester Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Hill and others HL 1993
The complaint had been laid before Magistrates before the expiration of the time limit, but was only considered and the summons issued after the time limit. The House also considered the power of delegation where a justice of the peace or the clerk . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Cottier QBD 22-Feb-1996
Proceedings against a youth begin at court; notice need not be given to the youth panel before the charge itself is made at police station. When considering whether proceedings have been ‘begun’ in any court for the section Saville LJ, said: ‘We . .
Mentioned – Lloyd v Young Admn 1963
There had been doubt on the face of the summons as to the date of the laying of the information.
Held: The court concluded on the evidence that the Justices were entitled to dismiss the information because of the doubts of the date. . .
Cited – Regina v Pontypridd Juvenile Court ex parte B and others Admn 1988
The court was asked about compliance with the time limits in the 1980 Act. There was a computer link between the police station and the magistrates’ court. The practice for laying an information was for the police to feed the information into the . .
Cited – Atkinson v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 12-May-2004
The court considered how to apply the time limits in the section. There was a system for automatic electronic communication between the police and the court office. The six month time limit expired on the 16th December. The documents served on the . .
See Also – Rockall v Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 9-May-2008
The defendant appealed by way of case stated against his conviction for having felled more than five cubic metres of wood without a licence. He argued that the summons had been issued out of time.
Held: The request to state a case failed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.250593
The local authority had refused to register a childminder, who successfully appealed to the magistrates, who awarded costs in her favour. The local authority appealed against the costs order. In doing so the authority urged the court to apply, by analogy, the principle that costs are not usually ordered in child cases.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The local authority had erred in concluding that the respondent was not fit to mind children, but their stance in relation to Mrs Davis was neither reprehensible nor unreasonable.
In a large Magistrates Court family case the LAB was to be allowed to assess costs before a decision was to be made by the Justices. Justices may award costs in an adversarial children matter, and await Legal Aid Board’s assessment on the amount. It was not the normal practice to award costs in child care cases.
Wilson J said: ‘Where the debate surrounds the future of a child, the proceedings are partly inquisitorial and the aspiration is that in their outcome the child is the winner and indeed the only winner. The court does not wish the spectre of an order for costs to discourage those with a proper interest in the child from participating in the debate. Nor does it wish to reduce the chance of their co-operation around the future life of the child by casting one as the successful party entitled to his costs and another as the unsuccessful party obliged to pay them. The proposition applies in its fullest form to proceedings between parents and other relations; but it also applies to proceedings to which a local authority are a party. Thus, even when a local authority’s application for a care order is dismissed, it is unusual to order them to pay the costs of the other parties. But the proposition is not applied where, for example, the conduct of a party has been reprehensible or the party’s stance has been beyond the band of what is reasonable: Havering London Borough Council v S [1986] 1 FLR 489 and Gojkovic v Gojkovic [1992] Fam 40, 60C-D.’
and ‘In care proceedings the local authority and all other parties come into court in order to assist it in choosing the programme for the child’s future which will best serve his or her welfare. In the case of Mrs Davis the local authority made an incorrect decision as to her fitness. She had a right to be registered and they infringed it. Mrs Davis afforded them the opportunity to review their decision by lodging an objection pursuant to section 77(3) of the Children Act 1989. But they resolved that the decision should stand. In order to establish her right to be registered, Mrs Davis had to appeal to the magistrates’ court. The proceedings were adversarial and the local authority lost the argument. Such were the circumstances for application of the principle that costs should follow the event. Far from being satisfied that the justices were plainly wrong to decide that the local authority should pay the costs of Mrs Davis, I consider that they were right.’
Wilson J
Independent 08-Jul-1994, Gazette 31-Aug-1994, [1994] 1 WLR 1317
England and Wales
See Also – Sutton London Borough Council v Davis FD 17-Mar-1994
Local Authority need not be inflexible in assessing fitness of child minder – smacking. A child minder refusing to sign Local Authority’s no-smack undertaking can still be registered. . .
Cited – Corner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 1-Mar-2005
The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the . .
See Also – Sutton London Borough Council v Davis FD 17-Mar-1994
Local Authority need not be inflexible in assessing fitness of child minder – smacking. A child minder refusing to sign Local Authority’s no-smack undertaking can still be registered. . .
Cited – In re T (Children) SC 25-Jul-2012
The local authority had commenced care proceedings, alleging abuse. After lengthy proceedings, of seven men and two grandparents, all but one were exonerated. The grandparents had not been entitled to legal aid, and had had to mortgage their house . .
Cited – In Re M (A Minor) (Local Authority’s Costs) FD 9-Jan-1995
The local authority applied for permission to refuse contact between two children and their parents. The magistrates refused the application and ordered the local authority to pay the father’s costs. The authority appealed.
Held: The appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.89634
Application for judicial review of decision to send youth to crown court for trial.
[2006] EWHC 2121 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244498
The defendants sought judicial review of decisions by magistrates to substitute out of time properly named companies as defendants in cases under the 1990 Act.
Held: The court had repeated the error made in the Marco case, by substituting as a defendant a party not before the court. The effect of the district judge’s decision was, in my view, to prefer a charge against a new defendant outside the statutory time limit.
[2006] EWHC 1749 (Admin)
England and Wales
Cited – Marco (Croydon) Ltd v Metropolitan Police Commissioner QBD 1983
The defendant company traded as A and J Bull Containers. They hired out a builder’s skip which was left out, unlit, on the highway at night. A cyclist rode into it and died. An information was laid against ‘A J Bull Ltd’, charging an offence under . .
Cited – Regina v Greater Manchester Justices Ex Parte Aldi Gmbh and Co Kg; Aldi Gmbh v Mulvenna QBD 28-Dec-1994
The substitution of a defendant in a case before the magistrates was challengeable where it was not a mere mistake in the name of the defendant. The wholesalers who should have been named had been in correspondence for some time with the prosecutor . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243311
After conviction for licensing offences, the police seized a sum of money from the respondent which they alleged was the proceeds of unlicensed sales. The magistrates made no order on conviction, so the police brought the issue under the Act. The magistrate found that the money was the proceeds of illegal trading, but nevertheless held that Mr White was the owner of it. The police appealed.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Although the contracts for sale of unlicensed liquor were void and unenforceable, Mr White did become the owner of the money; it was impossible to identify any other persons as being the true owners of it; and the magistrate was not constrained on public policy grounds from making an order under the Act in favour of Mr White.
Tudor Evans J, Beldam LJ
Unreported, 13 March 1992
England and Wales
Cited – Gough and Another v The Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police CA 2-Mar-2004
The claimants sought return of vehicle parts from the police. The police replied that the goods had been tampered with in such a way as to suggest they may have been stolen, and that they were therefore kept, even after the finish of the court . .
Cited – Jackson v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police QBD 22-Oct-1993
Mr Jackson was convicted of a drugs offence. On arrest, the police had seized money in his possession. No order as to the money was made at the trial. Mr Jackson applied under the Act. The magistrate accepted that Mr Jackson was the owner of the . .
Cited – Merseyside Police v Owens Admn 31-May-2012
The police had refused to returns items seized from Mr Owens on the basis that to do so would indirectly encourage and assist him in suspected criminal activity. CCTV footage had been removed from him to attempt identify an arsonist of a house.The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.194108
[2005] EWHC 1481 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228900
A district judge does have jurisdiction to decide preliminary points of law.
[2005] EWHC 1231 (Admin)
Water Resources Act 1991, Environmental Protection Act 1990
England and Wales
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227057
[2005] EWHC 306 (Admin)
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223490
[2005] NICA 4
Northern Ireland
Cited – Regina v Brentford Justices Ex parte Wong QBD 1981
The defendant had been involved in a traffic accident. Very shortly before the expiry of the six month time limit, the prosecutor issued a careless driving summons apparently in order to preserve the possibility of a prosecution without yet having . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222110
The court considered the principles for sentencing for sexual assaults by youths and the decision of magistrates whether to decline jurisdiction. Leveson J: ‘That the position would be different for an older person is obvious. Had an adult behaved in this manner to a 13 year old boy, sexual gratification would have been an obvious motive and a substantial custodial sentence would indeed have been justified. An older teenager could also lose his liberty. In my judgment, however, 13 and 14 year olds behaving in this way to one of their school friends, while deeply reprehensible and demanding condemnation, do not come within that category, and certainly not at the level of a sentence approaching two years.’
Leveson J
[2004] EWHC 2912 (Admin)
Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 24, Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 91(3)
England and Wales
Cited – Crown Prosecution Service (Redbridge Section), Regina (on the Application Of) v Redbridge Youth Court and Another Admn 8-Jun-2005
The CPS appealed the refusal of the respondent magistrates to decline jurisdiction to hear allegations against a youth.
Held: The magistrates had applied the wrong test, asking themselves whether a sentence substantially greater than two years . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220543
Refusal of magistrates to make order prohibiting disclosure of child’s name on application for anti-social behaviour order.
Mr Justice Harrison
[2004] EWHC 1933 (Admin)
Children and Young Persons Act 1933 39, Crime and Disorder Act 1998 1D
England and Wales
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200314
[2003] EWHC 2909 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189131
[2003] EWHC 2385 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187313
Sedley LJ, Gage J
[2002] EWHC 1252 (Admin), [2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 67, [2002] Crim LR 681, 166 JP 453, (2002) 166 JP 453
England and Wales
Cited – Regina (C and Another) v Sheffield Youth Court; Regina (N) v Sheffield Youth Court QBD 23-Jan-2003
In each case, youths had been committed to the Crown Court for trial but complained that the Youth Court should have dealt with the cases, and sought judicial review of the Youth Court decision.
Held: The test for a review of a decision of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.175111
The power and duty to deal with a defendant brought before the magistrates on an accusation of breach of the terms of his bail lay with the magistrates, and even where the bail had been set by the crown court and he was due to appear in the Crown Court within a few days, they had to deal with the matter on the defendant being brought before them. They have no power to commit the defendant to the Crown Court for that court to deal with him.
Times 20-Feb-2001
England and Wales
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88688
The magistrates had full power to commit a defendant to the Crown Court for sentence where they wanted to fine him, but considered that their powers to impose a fine were too limited. When doing so, they should invite representation on the proposal, and convey their views to the Crown Court.
Gazette 07-Dec-2000
England and Wales
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88571
The explicit consent of a defendant is not required in order to be bound over to keep the peace.
Times 30-Apr-1997
Justices of the Peace Act 1361, Justices of the Peace Act 1968
England and Wales
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88542
The magistrates had refused an adjournment of a trial after the non-attendance of the complainant. The prosecution offered no evidence, and the charge was dismissed. The prosecutor applied for judicial review, but the case came on only 16 months afterwards. The court held that several factors were to be considered, including the seriousness of the charge, the evidence and effect of any delay upon it, the defendant’s contribution if any to the delay, and any justifiable feeling of aggrievement for the complainant.
Times 15-Mar-2000, Gazette 02-Mar-2000
England and Wales
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88565
The power to institute proceedings for a breach of the Act lay in the inspector, and he could not delegate it. The Act was explicit in its requirements as to who could issue proceedings. The informations were not laid when the inspector requested a local authority solicitor to issue them, and there was nothing to justify any inference of a power to delegate.
Gazette 30-Nov-2000, Times 22-Nov-2000
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 38
England and Wales
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88431
When calculating the value of damage for the purpose of deciding whether an allegation of criminal damage could be referred to the Crown Court, the damage was the replacement value and not the consequential losses. An activist was accused of damaging genetically engineered crops. The replacement value was andpound;750, but the consequential losses amounted to over andpound;5000. It was triable only at the Magistrates Court.
Times 13-Mar-2001, Gazette 12-Apr-2001
Criminal Damage Act 1971, Magistrates Courts Act 1980 22
England and Wales
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88416
Justices clerks are permitted to question fine defaulters as to their ability to pay, but must do so under enquiry without bias, and not as a prosecutor. A warrant for arrest for non-pyment of a fine was neither civil nor criminal in character, but in a category of its own.
Times 13-Mar-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 280
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 82(4)(b)(I)
Cited – Hutt v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis CA 3-Dec-2003
The claimant had first been arrested (unlawfully) for non-payment of fines. He was chronically ill. He had later been re-arrested, again unlawfully for an alleged offence of common assault against one of the original arresting civilian officers, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138401
The court was asked whether a defendant can be convicted of driving while disqualified notwithstanding that, subsequent to the act of driving in question, he has successfully appealed against the conviction for which he had earlier been disqualified? The magistrates refused to state a case, saying that the request was frivolous.
Held:
As to the refusal to state a case, if there is a real point to be argued, then a case should have been stated. Simon Brown LJ said: ‘On 13th November 1996 the Magistrate refused to state a case, explaining fully and helpfully the reasons why he regarded the applicant’s argument as unsustainable and why in the result he concluded that the application was frivolous within the meaning of section 111(5) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980.
Invited by the applicant’s solicitors on 4th December 1996 to reconsider his decision, the Magistrate on 11th December refused, pointing out that, in any event, ‘the case has in effect been stated in the body of that letter’ (i.e. his earlier letter of 13th November). The same day, 11th December 1996, the applicant brought judicial review proceedings seeking an order for mandamus to require the respondent Magistrate to state a case. Leave to move was granted . . on 26th January 1997, and it was in that form that the matter first came before us today. As, however, I have had occasion to remark in a number of other cases, such a course, although conventional and technically correct, is in fact, in circumstances such as arise here, absurdly inconvenient. If it succeeds, all it produces is an order for a case to be stated which in reality advances the resolution of the substantive issue not one jot. Far better surely, in a case like this where the facts are not in dispute and where in any event the Magistrate has, as he observed, already in effect stated the case, that the true issue should be placed directly before this court (as so easily it can be) by way of a straightforward judicial review challenge to the legality of the conviction . . With these considerations in mind, we gave leave at the outset of the hearing to amend the proceedings to include a separate judicial review challenge going directly to the conviction on 23rd October 1996 so as to raise squarely for present decision – rather than merely for the expression of a prima facie view upon – the critical issue arising. I should just note that we took this course with the agreement not merely of the applicant, but also of the Crown Prosecution Service who fortunately were represented before us.’
Simon Brown LJ, Garland J
[1997] EWHC Admin 559
England and Wales
Cited – Sunworld Limited v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council QBD 2000
The company faced a prosecution under the 1968 Act, in respect of a brochure. On conviction, the company asked the Crown Court to state a case for the Divisional Court. The Recorder refused as to two points, saying that they were decisions of fact . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137504
The defendant sought judicial review of the decision of the magistrates to commit her to prison for non-payment of fines. The had found wilful neglect to pay.
Held: The magistrates had erred in thinking that the variability of the defendant’s wage disallowed an attachment order. The committal was quashed and the case remitted for rehearing.
Times 27-Jun-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 461, (1997) 161 JPN 794, [1998] BPIR 642, 161 JP 550
Attachment of Earnings Act 1971 1(3)
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Oldham Justices ex parte Crawley (orse Cawley) 1996
The court set out the duties of magistrates when making a warrant for committal. Simon Brown LJ said that where there has been a criminal conviction the courts have firmly excluded collateral attack by habeas corpus, holding that the only proper . .
Cited – Regina v Newark Justices ex parte Keenaghan and R v Stockport Justices ex parte Conlon Admn 18-Dec-1996
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137406
This was an appeal by way of case stated. The appellants were alleged to have offered timeshare contracts without notification of cancellation rights. A director claimed he was unfit to attend, but the trial proceeded in his absence. He had, the day before, attended a conference with counsel.
Held: Given the medical evidence before them, the magistrates should undoubtedly have allowed an adjournment. The schemes had been constructed so that the purchaser bought shares in a company rather than simply a timeshare. However the magistrates were correct to conclude that this was a timeshare agreement dressed as a share agreement. The magistrates had not effectively considered the opinions of counsel obtained by the respondent and which were capable of establishing a due diligence defence.
Lord Justice Rose And The Hon Mrs Justice Rafferty
[2000] EWHC Admin 441
Timeshare Act 1992, Magistrates Courts Act 1980 8 11
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Bolton Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Merna; Regina v Richmond Justices, ex parte Haines 1991
The divisional court should intervene where a defendant has been deprived of a fair opportunity to present his case because of his own unavoidable absence. . .
Cited – Regina v Chippenham Justices ex parte Harris QBD 28-Jan-1994
. .
Cited – Regina v Birmingham City Magistrates’ Court ex parte David Frank Booth Admn 12-May-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135629
[1860] EngR 1183, (1860) 9 CB NS 301, (1860) 142 ER 118
England and Wales
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.286022
A charter granting jurisdiction to borough magistrates over a district not within the borough does not exclude the county justices without express words. And though such charter contain words of reference to former charters in which exclusive jurisdiction is given to the borough justices within the borough, and add that they shall have jurisdiction within the new district in tam amplis modo et forma, and c. yet if there be in the latter charter a saving clause of the rights of the Crown and of all other persons, the borough magistrates have only a concurrent jurisdiction with the county justices. Where the words of a charter are doubtful, they may be explained by long usage (a).
[1789] EngR 2471, (1789) 3 TR 279, (1789) 100 ER 574
England and Wales
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.368102
A pronouncement by Justices was of no legal effect, having been made ultra vires, and so no certiorari order was necessary or capable of being made to correct it.
Gazette 08-Jun-1994, Gazette 30-Mar-1994, Times 16-Mar-1994
England and Wales
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88289
A Court requiring a surety before binding a defendant over must give the defendant an opportunity to make representations before rejecting that surety.
Simon Brown LJ, Mance J
Times 28-Jan-1998, [1999] 1 Cr App R 345, [1998] EWHC Admin 41, [1998] 1 WLR 800
Cited – Hooper v United Kingdom ECHR 16-Nov-2004
The defendant had appeared in court on a charge of assault. The magistrate considered that he might be unruly and withoutmore bound him over to keep the peace. In the absence of any surety, he was committed to custody.
Held: The proceedings . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86401
A Magistrates order imposing a suspended sentence of imprisonment against a defendant in his absence for non-payment of a compensation order was invalid where there was apparent uncertainty as to whether he had been served with notice of the hearing.
Gazette 26-Aug-1998, Times 12-Oct-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 756
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86560
A delay in appeal against a decision taken in the absence of the accused is not the sole ground to be considered for the refusal of a rehearing.
Gazette 26-Nov-1997, Times 09-Dec-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 993
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86609
The defendant had been held in custody awaiting committal on a murder charge. An additional charge of manslaughter was added. The defendant argued that this did not constitute a new offence so as to allow an extension of custody time limits.
Held: The issue was the actual information laid before the magistrates and whether the second one constituted a different offence. If it did, the custody time limits restarted in the absence of some abuse. The regulations did not infringe the defendant’s human right to liberty.
Lord Hope said that before having recourse to section 3 one must first be satisfied that the ordinary construction of the provision gives rise to an incompatibility.
Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Clyde Lord Scott of Foscote
Gazette 24-May-2001, Times 13-Mar-2001, [2001] UKHL 12, [2001] 2 All ER 1, [2001] 2 Cr App Rep 20, [2001] 2 WLR 865, (2001) 165 JPN 327, [2001] ACD 82, (2001) 165 JP 465, [2001] HRLR 29
Prosecution of Offences (Custody Time Limits) Regulations 1987 (1987 No 299) 4, Human Rights Act 1998 3
England and Wales
Cited – ANS and Another v ML SC 11-Jul-2012
The mother opposed adoption proceedings, and argued that the provision in the 2007 Act, allowing a court to dispense with her consent, infringed her rights under Article 8 and was therefore made outwith the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86017
After a bench dismissed a matter, a later bench awarded the defendant his costs. He applied for payment but was refused on basis that it was not the same bench.
Held: It need not be the same bench to dismiss the charge and to order costs. Once justices have made a defendant’s costs order, it is not for the clerk to ignore it. If he believed it wrong in law, he should raise it again with the bench or a reconstituted bench to alter the decision or refer it to a higher court.
Times 06-May-1999, Gazette 08-Apr-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 205
Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 16(1)
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85371
Advertisements placed by a roadway outside a shop were properly found by magistrates not to cause an obstruction, nor to be unsafe or any danger. Magistrates were wrong to seek to alter their decision when stating their case for the divisional court.
Gazette 24-Jun-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 639
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82741
Proceedings against a youth begin at court; notice need not be given to the youth panel before the charge itself is made at police station. When considering whether proceedings have been ‘begun’ in any court for the section Saville LJ, said: ‘We were referred to a number of authorities which considered somewhat similar provisions, but all I glean from those is that the answer to the question when proceedings are instituted or begun depends on the context in which the words are used and the purpose of the provision.’
Saville LJ
Times 22-Feb-1996, [1996] 1 WLR 826
Children and Young Persons Act 1969 34(2)
Cited – Rockall v Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 22-Mar-2007
The defendant appealed against his conviction under the Act, saying that the proceedings had been issued late. The issue was the calculation of the date when proceedings were begun.
Held: There was no justification for reading the wording of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79996
The council received a report by a housing trust about the behaviour of the defendant, then aged 16, who lived on an estate within the Borough, and after investigating applied for an anti-social behaviour order. Some witness statements contained first hand evidence, but the application was primarily based on hearsay evidence contained in records of complaints received by the trust and in police crime reports with from allegations of verbal abuse and serious criminal activities including assault, burglary, criminal damage and drug dealing dating from April 1998 to December 2000. Hearsay evidence was served under the 1999 rules. The defendant said the proceedings were criminal.
Held: Hearsay evidence is admissible on an application for an anti-social behaviour order. There is nothing in the jurisdiction of Human Rights to make such evidence inadmissible in civil proceedings, and its admission would not automatically make a criminal trial unfair. The weight to be attached to such evidence must vary according to the circumstances, and the magistrates could sensibly look at the Civil Evidence Act considerations. Such evidence alone might be insufficient for an order, but it should have some weight in most proceedings.
The council sought an anti-social behaviour order against the applicant. He challenged the admission against him of hearsay evidence.
Schiemann LJ, Poole J
Times 20-Feb-2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 582
Magistrates Courts (Hearsay Evidence in Civil Proceedings) Rules 1999 681, Crime and Disorder Act 1998 1, Civil Evidence Act 1995 1 9(2), Human Rights Act 1998 3
Appealed to – Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
Appeal from – Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79228
Justices cannot make a three month secure accommodation order after an earlier one month interim order. The total order must not exceed three months.
Times 24-May-1994, Ind Summary 20-Jun-1994
England and Wales
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78797
The local authority had refused to renew a private hire vehicle licence. That refusal was successfully challenged, and the magistrates had awarded costs on the basis that they should follow the event. The authority appealed.
Held: The discretion given to magistrates to award such costs as it feels are just and reasonable does not mean that costs should always and normally follow the event. An authority with a duty to make decisions which suffered a successful challenge to that decision, but where the fault in the decision fell short of being unreasonable, dishonest, or improper, should not normally be ordered to pay the costs. The financial effect on the parties should be assessed, but such challenges are part of the expense of running a business. Section 64 was concerned with both liability for costs and their amount. The only statutory restriction on the power of the magistrates was that they could not make an order for costs against a successful party.
Bingham CJ said: ‘The issue in this appeal by case stated is whether justices erred in the exercise of their discretion by awarding costs against a local authority on a successful complaint against a vehicle licensing decision of the local authority when the local authority had not, in making the decision appealed against, acted unreasonably or in bad faith.’
Later he continued ‘It seems to me that the justices in this case misdirected themselves, first, in relying on a principle that costs should follow the event, that misdirection being compounded by their view that the reference in section 64 to the order being just and reasonable applied to quantum only. On the other hand, in my judgment the submissions made by Mr Blair-Gould on behalf of the local authority go too far the other way since to give effect to the principle for which he contends would deprive the justices of any discretion to view the case in the round which is in my judgment what section 64 intends.
I would accordingly hold that the proper approach to questions of this kind can for convenience be summarised is three propositions:
1. Section 64(1) confers a discretion upon a magistrates’ court to make such order as to costs as it thinks just and reasonable. That provision applies both to the quantum of the costs (if any) to be paid, but also as to the party (if any) which should pay them.
2. What the court will think just and reasonable will depend on all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case before the court. The court may think it just and reasonable that costs should follow the event, but need not think so in all cases covered by the subsection.
3. Where a complainant has successfully challenged before justices an administrative decision made by a police or regulatory authority acting honestly, reasonably, properly and on grounds that reasonably appeared to be sound, in exercise of its public duty, the court should consider, in addition to any other relevant fact or circumstances, both (i) the financial prejudice to the particular complainant in the particular circumstances if an order for costs is not made in his favour; and (ii) the need to encourage public authorities to make and stand by honest, reasonable and apparently sound administrative decisions made in the public interest without fear of exposure to undue financial prejudice if the decision is successfully challenged.’
Silber J, Lord Bingham of Cornhill
Times 31-May-2000, (2000) COD 338, (2000) 164 JP 485
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 64(1), Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 62(1)(b)
Cited – Regina v Merthyr Tydfil Crown Court, ex parte Chief Constable Dyfed Powys Police QBD 9-Nov-1998
The Chief Constable, on good grounds, objected to the transfer of a justices’ on-licence to a Mrs W. Mrs W appealed and the Chief Constable, having objected to the transfer, became a respondent. On the appeal Mrs W contended that, since the conduct . .
Cited – Regina v Totnes Licensing Justices, ex parte Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall QBD 28-May-1990
The court considered the award of costs in a licensing case. Roch J said: ‘There can be no doubt that in civil proceedings between litigants, be it in the High Court or county court, the principle is that costs follow the event. The winning party . .
Cited – Chief Constable of Derbyshire v Goodman and Newton Admn 2-Apr-1998
Firearms licences were granted to the two respondents, but then revoked by the Chief Constable. They appealed to the Crown Court and their appeal was allowed. The judge, however, ordered the Chief Constable to pay the costs of the two respondents, . .
Cited – Baxendale-Walker v The Law Society Admn 30-Mar-2006
The solicitor appealed being struck off. He had given a character reference in circumstances where he did not have justification for the assessment.
Held: ‘The appellant knew that Barclays Bank trusted him to provide a truthful reference. . .
Cited – Cambridge City Council v Alex Nestling Ltd QBD 17-May-2006
The council appealed an award of costs against it. The respondent had appealed against a refusal by the council to vary a premises licence for a public house with partial success, and the magistrates had awarded the respondent half its costs.
Cited – Mastercard UK Members Forum Ltd Mastercard International Inc CAT 28-Jul-2006
. .
Cited – Perinpanathan, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court and Another CA 4-Feb-2010
The appellant’s daughter had been stopped entering the country with andpound;150,000 in cash. The police sought an order for its forfeiture, suspecting a link with terrorism. The magistrates found no evidence of such, and declined to make the order, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78542
[1903] 67 JP 32
Cited – Makro Properties Limited v Nuneaton and Bedworth BC Admn 2012
A minor use will constitute rateable occupation for the purposes of liability to occupied rates. . .
Cited – Kenya Aid Programme v Sheffield City Council Admn 22-Jan-2013
The claimant challenged a decision that it was liable for non domestic rates in respect of some commercial units, on the basis that the use by the charity was not itself charitable.
Held: ‘there is no reason for limiting the ambit of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.567243
The court considered an application for judicial review by the DPP of a decision to acquit the defendant because the prosecutor had failed to appear for trial.
Held: Dismissing the information, and acquitting the accused had been an unreasonable decision which no reasonable bench could have come to. The acquittal was a nullity and mandamus would issue requiring the justices to hear the informations according to law.
Mann LJ said: ‘However, the duty of the court is to hear informations which are properly before it. The prosecution has a right to be heard and there is a public interest that, save in exceptional circumstances, it should be heard’ and ‘We have already stated that in our judgment the respondent justices’ decision to dismiss the information was outwith their statutory power. It was thus a nullity and could not have sustained a plea of autrefois because there had not been a lawful acquittal.’
Mann LJ
[1993] 1 All ER 411
Cited – Crown Prosecution Service, Regina (on the Application of) v Portsmouth Crown Court Admn 1-May-2003
The CPS appealed against dismissal of their case by the Crown Court after no representative had appeared at court to present the case. Counsel had two cases, and had asked this to be held pending completion of the other which then overran. Counsel . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.470924
R was charged with burglary. He objected to the admission of evidence of a confession to a police officer, saying that it had been improperly obtained. Both prosecution and defence suggested the need for a voir dire, but the magistrates declined.
Held: R’s request for a writ of mandamus succeeded. Once the parties accepted that the admissibility of the alleged statement was contested, he was entitled to have its admissibility tested as a preliminary issue. When magistrates conducting a summary trial are faced with an objection to the admissibility of evidence under ss 76 and/or 78 of PACE, they are obliged to determine the objections forthwith by holding a trial within a trial (voir dire).
Questions put to an investigating officer to test the admissibility of the evidence were not on their own sufficient to give rise to the need for a voir dire.
Russell LJ
[1988] QB 1, [1987] 2 All ER 668, (1987) 86 Cr App R 1, [1987] Crim LR 572, [1987] 3 WLR 224
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 76 78
Cited – Regina v Dhorajiwala CACD 9-Jun-2010
The defendant appealed against her conviction for theft. She had been accused of stealing money over many months from the till at the pharmacy where she worked. She said that a confession in interviews conducted by civilian investigators should not . .
Cited – Beeres v Crown Prosecution Service (West Midlands) Admn 13-Feb-2014
The defendant said that his confession should not have been admitted in evidence it having been given when he had not been advised of his rights whilst at the police station because of his inebriation.
Held: The appeal failed. A confession is, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.416720
An examination before examining justices had the following jurat. ”Sworn before me, on,’ and, ” and I do hereby certify that the above examination was read over,’ andc. After this followed the signatures of two justices. The ground of objection was that this examination ‘is illegal and bad, inasmuch as, though signed by two justices, it purports to have been taken before one justice only.’ The sessions having, under stat. 4 and 5 W. 4, c. 76, s. 81, refused to hear evidence in support of the settlement disclosed by the examination, and discharged the order of removal, on this objeetion : Held that, on the objection so taken, the sessions ought not to have rejected the examination. Order of sessions quashed.
[1842] EngR 1005, (1842) 2 QB 520, (1842) 114 ER 204
England and Wales
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.307960
By memorandum in writing P agreed to serve M as a cutler for three years, arid M agreed to employ him aid pay him for his work according to a schedule of prices. Having quitted his service during the term, he was convicted under the 4 Geo 4, c. 34, and imprisoned for twenty-one
days, for unlawfully absenting himself from his service After his discharge from prison he did not return to the service of M , but went and worked elsewhere. On a second information laid against him for unlawfully absenting himself from the service, it was proved to the satisfaction of the justices that on the first occasion he absented himself on account of a difference with his master as to the scale of prices, that when, after his discharge from prison, he refused to return, he was advised by his attorney that he was not bound to do so, and the justices stated that they thought very probable that he bona fide believed what his attorney told him. Held; The conviction could not be sustained.
[1861] EngR 528, (1861) 6 H and N 753, (1861) 158 ER 311
England and Wales
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.284289
The court considered the meaning of section 9 of the 1875 Act which read: ‘Where a person is accused before a Court of summary jurisdiction of any offence made punishable by this Act, and for which a penalty amounting to twenty pounds, or imprisonment, is imposed, the accused may, on appearing before the Court of summary jurisdiction, declare that he objects to being tried for such offence by a Court of summary jurisdiction, and thereupon the Court of summary jurisdiction may deal with the case in all respects as if the accused were charged with an indictable offence and not an offence punishable on summary conviction, and the offence may be prosecuted on indictment accordingly.’
Held: A declaration of objection to being tried by a Court of summary jurisdiction was duly made by a person accused of an offence made punishable by the Act who was entitled to object. Accordingly he had a right to trial by jury and that the justices were bound to give effect to his claim and had no jurisdiction to try the case.
[1913] 1 KB 561
Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875 9
Cited – Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food HL 14-Feb-1968
Exercise of Ministerial Discretion
The Minister had power to direct an investigation in respect of any complaint as to the operation of any marketing scheme for agricultural produce. Milk producers complained about the price paid by the milk marketing board for their milk when . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.272549
It is not open to the justices to attach specific conditions to a binding-over order.
[1959] 43 CAR 31
Cited – Hashman and Harrup v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Nov-1999
The defendants had been required to enter into a recognisance to be of good behaviour after disrupting a hunt by blowing of a hunting horn. They were found to have unlawfully caused danger to the dogs. Though there had been no breach of the peace, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.261941
Forbes J
[1972] All ER 195
England and Wales
Cited – Lewin v Truebell Plc Admn 24-Mar-1997
The prosecutor appealed against dismissal of his claim that the defendants had sold kits advertised to contain 100 pieces, when they said the pack contained only 61 pieces usable seperately. The defendants ponted to 100 pieces, of which 39 were not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.258607
A magistrate asked to issue a summons is entitled to consider delay, even within any time limit for the bringing of prosecutions and, absent any finding that a fair trial would be impossible, at least if there is wholly unexplained delay which can be regarded as unconscionable.
(1986) 150 JP Rep 401
Cited – Green, Regina (on the Application of) v The City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court, Thoday, Thompson Admn 5-Dec-2007
The claimant appealed from the refusal by the magistrate to issue summonses for the prosecution for blashemous libel of the Director General of the BBC and the producers of a show entitled ‘Jerry Springer – The Opera.’
Held: The gist of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.261813
The council appealed an award of costs against it. The respondent had appealed against a refusal by the council to vary a premises licence for a public house with partial success, and the magistrates had awarded the respondent half its costs.
Held: The appellant had not acted unlawfully, but had acted conscientously and properly. The magistrates had merely reached a different conclusion. The otherwise normal rule that costs follow the event did not apply in such cases.
Richards LJ, Toulson J
Times 11-Jul-2006
England and Wales
Cited – Bradford City Metropolitan District Council v Booth QBD 10-May-2000
The local authority had refused to renew a private hire vehicle licence. That refusal was successfully challenged, and the magistrates had awarded costs on the basis that they should follow the event. The authority appealed.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.244195
Whilst an order may be available to oblige a magistrate to hear and determine a matter properly within his jurisdiction, an order will not be available which seeks ‘to control the magistrate in the conduct of the case or to prescribe to him the evidence which he shall receive or reject’.
Cockburn CJ
(1879) 5 QBD 1
Cited – Hoar-Stevens v Richmond Magistrates’ Court Admn 23-Oct-2003
The court considered an application to quash an order requiring the attendance of the claimant to give evidence: ‘Normally this court will not entertain an application for a quashing order in relation to a decision made in a magistrates’ court where . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.244438
In a very rare case the court will be willing to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to prevent an abuse of the court process by an action designed with improper motives: ‘There can be no doubt as to the jurisdiction of the Court to interfere where it is satisfied that its process is being used for an indirect or improper use.’
Bigham J
[1909] 1 KB 258
Cited – Regina v Leeds Magistrates Court ex parte Serif Systems Limited and Hamilton Admn 9-Oct-1997
The applicant sought that summonses be set aside as an abuse of process, being begun to embarrass him as he set out to become an MP. Thirty one private summonses had been issued.
Held: Of the summonses to be continued it could not be said that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.225277
A magistrate’s power to order the detention of someone who wilfully interrupted the proceedings of the court includes ‘all incidental powers necessary to enable the court to exercise the jurisdiction in a judicial manner’, and specifically in this case the power to direct that the person be brought before him.
[1990] 2 QB 397, [1990] 2 WLR 76, (1989) 154 JP 217, [1989] 3 All ER 833
England and Wales
Cited – Ward v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and others HL 5-May-2005
The claimant had been taken under warrant to a mental hospital, but was found not to be suffering any mental illness. She complained that the arrest was unlawful, since the police officer had not been accompanied by the people named on the warrant. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.224766
(1984) 148 JP 193
England and Wales
Mentioned – Skelton, Regina (on The Application of) v Winchester Crown Court Admn 5-Dec-2017
The Court was asked whether the Crown Court could properly refuse to state a case for the opinion of the divisional court, having convicted a defendant, on her appeal from the magistrates’ court, of an offence of common assault. She was evicted from . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.606452
Times 16-Jun-1998
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 111(3)
England and Wales
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.83101
Once the charges had been withdrawn by the prosecutor, the former defendant was no longer an accused, and the magistrates had no power to re-open the case to alter an order for costs they had made.
Times 27-Jul-1998
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 142(1)
Cited – Regina v Thames Magistrates’ Court ex parte Genegis Ramadan Admn 5-Oct-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.79272
The respondent had recovered his car from the police via a complaint to the magistrates, having lent it to his brother-in-law, who had used it in a burglary. The magistrates found that he had not known of the intended use. The police had taken no steps to ascertain his state of knowledge, and the magistrates ordered the police to pay his costs. The police appealed by case stated against the order for costs.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The conduct of the police justified the order. In the course of judgment the Court said: ‘In matters of this kind, it was of the utmost assistance to the justices that the police should be present at court, both to indicate whether or not they objected to the order being made, and to test the evidence of a claimant. In such circumstances, the justices would normally make no order for costs. But they did have a discretion, and if they considered that the police had gone beyond the usual rule merely assisting the justices, and actively opposed the order, then there was no reason why the justices should not, in the exercise of their discretion, order the police to pay costs. That was clearly what happened in the present case.’
[1984] Crim LR 232
England and Wales
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.401966
Sewage works could not be treated as ‘premises’ under the section. ‘The very magnitude of the authority conferred upon justices by the sections under consideration affords a powerful argument that they are intended for ordinary and comparatively simple cases . .’
(1889) 22 QBD 520
Not binding – Hounslow London Borough Council v Thames Water Utilities Ltd Admn 23-May-2003
An abatement notice was served on the respondent in respect of the stink emanating from their sewage works. The magistrates decided that the workls did not constitute premises within the section, following Parlby.
Held: Parlby was not binding, . .
Cited – Vella v London Borough of Lambeth Admn 14-Nov-2005
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision to serve an abatement notice in respect of premises where the normal noise incidents of living were heard in neighbouring flats, which notices were to be abated by noise insulation.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.183839
The magistrates had made an error in the form of committal, when remitting the defendant to the Crown Court for sentence.
Held: The error had the effect of limiting the Crown Court to the powers which had been available to the magistrates. The statement of committal under section 4 had failed to include, as was required, a statement that the magistrates were of the opinion that they also had power to commit the defendant under section 3(2). This had the effect of disapplying section 5 in the crown Court.
Holland, Hallett JJ
Times 07-Feb-2003
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 4
England and Wales
Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.178999
The Appellant was the owner of premises which she let to another party for use as a club. The other party was charged with 10 offences relating to the supply of liquor at the premises and the Appellant was joined to show cause why the club should not be struck off the register. After the hearing, the justices were informed that the costs of the prosecution amounted to 21 guineas. They convicted the manager, fined him andpound;10 and ordered him to pay 20 guineas costs, and also ordered the appellant to pay andpound;100 costs and they ordered the club to be struck off the register.
Held: The appeal by way of motion for certiorari suceeded. Costs are to be awarded as compensation, not as punishment. The order against the Appellant was a penalty in the guise of costs.
Lord Goddard CJ said: ‘I regret that any bench of justices could have acted as these justices did. They were not imposing costs on the applicant; they were imposing a penalty on her when she had not been convicted of any offence, but had only come before the court to show cause why the premises should not be struck off the register. Under the guise of making an order for costs, the justices inflicted a penalty of andpound;100, which could only have been intended as a penalty. Since, by their order against [the manager], they had satisfied the costs of the prosecution apart from one guinea certiorari will go…’
Lord Goddard CJ
[1954] 1 All ER 406, [1954] 1 WLR 485
England and Wales
Cited – Prasannan v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Admn 25-Feb-2010
The appellant challenged an order to pay costs summarily assessed at andpound;20,000.
Held: The order was not a penalty and was within the discretion of the district judge. The appeal failed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.401963
The court considered the circumstances when a superior court should consider an appeal against a magistrates court on an adjournment of a trial: ‘First, a decision as to whether or not proceedings should be adjourned is, as counsel for the defendant rightly urged, a decision within the discretion of the trial court. It is pre-eminently a discretionary decision. It follows, as a matter of undoubted law, that it is a decision with which any appellate court will be very slow to interfere. It will accordingly interfere only if very clear grounds are shown for doing so.
Secondly, I wish to make it plain that the justices in this case are in no way open to criticism for paying great attention to the need for expedition in the prosecution for criminal proceedings. It has been said time and time again that delays in the administration of justice are a scandal, and they are the more scandalous when it is criminal proceedings with which a court is concerned.’
Bingham LJ
[1990] 155 JP 324
England and Wales
Cited – W, Regina (on the Application of) v Camberwell Youth Court and Another Admn 10-Sep-2004
The defendant sought a Judicial review of the magistrates’ decision to adjourn case at request of prosecutor. The prosecutor had failed to comply with its disclosure obligations, and de-warned its witnesses before the date fixed for trial.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.261304
F who was 16 years old when he appeared before the juvenile court charged with robbery and possession of an imitation firearm. The justices decided to proceed summarily. No plea was taken. After being released on bail, he later appeared before a different bench, facing additional charges. The justices purported to reverse the previous decision. They committed the applicant to the Crown Court for trial in respect of the original charges.
Held: The second decision was quashed. Once a properly constituted bench of justices had considered all the factors placed before the court that were relevant to the exercise of their discretion under section 24 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 and ordered summary trial, a differently constituted bench of justices had no power to re-examine that decision on the same facts.
Stephen Brown LJ said: ‘Unfortunately, the justices, as is clear from their affidavits, did not take into account any additional circumstances nor, it would seem, any additional facts beyond those which had been placed before the justices on 20 September. In those circumstances the question has to be asked: were they at liberty to review and reverse a decision which had been formally taken and announced by a properly constituted bench of justices having the power and duty to make the inquiry under section 24(1)? There is an apparent anomaly if they do not have such power, because section 25 provides that where a court has begun to try an information summarily it can, if it takes the view that it should not continue to try the case summarily, continue the hearing as examining justices with a view to committal for trial. It may therefore seem anomalous that they cannot change their minds before actually embarking on a summary trial.
Justices like every other court, must of course exercise such discretion as they have judicially, but this is not merely a matter of discretion; it is a matter of power. Have they got power to reverse a decision taken by their colleagues at an earlier hearing? In my judgment the whole scheme of the Act suggests that they do not have that power before embarking upon the hearing. Once a decision has been made after proper inquiry and consideration of all relevant factors, it cannot be reversed merely by re- examining the case afresh on the same material.
It seems to me that they may well have had the opportunity for taking a different view from that taken by their colleagues in the light of the new and additional factors which had emerged since 20 September. For example, not only was it alleged that a further serious offence had been committed whilst the applicant was on bail, and with which the justices had to deal quite separately, but in addition a great deal more information was before them as to the character of the applicant. They now knew that a number of other offences were alleged to have been committed by him from May onwards. Those were matters which were not before the justices who had sat on 20 September, so there was in my judgment material upon which it could be argued that it would be proper for the justices to review the question as to mode of trial.
As I have said, that was not in fact the way in which these justices proceeded. Their affidavits are very frank and clear about that matter. It seems to me that this was simply a different view formed upon the same facts by a differently constituted bench. In my judgment in the result they did exceed their powers. Prima facie therefore that decision should be quashed and also the decision to commit for trial.’
McCullough J said: ‘a decision under section 24(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 is not irrevocable. However, once such a decision has been taken and announced, it will in the great majority of cases stand. But in a case where trial on indictment has been decided upon, it is in my opinion open to the justices to review that decision at any stage up to the start of their inquiry as examining justices. Such a review will be permissible if a change of circumstances has occurred since the original decision was taken and also if circumstances are brought to the attention of the court which, although existing when the original decision was taken, were not then drawn to the attention of the court. I am thinking, for example, of a case where justices are told on a later occasion that the facts of the charge were less serious than the court was originally led to believe, or where the court learns facts about the defendant’s background, character, and antecedents, which indicate that if he is found guilty there will be no need after all for it to be possible to sentence him in pursuance of section 53(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.
Similarly, in a case where summary trial has been decided upon, it is in my opinion open to the justices to review that decision at any stage up to the beginning of the summary trial. Such a review is permissible if a change of circumstances has occurred since the original decision was taken and also if circumstances are brought to the attention of the court which, although existing when the original decision was taken, were not then drawn to the attention of the court . . Put more shortly, at any stage before the tracks divide, the decision as to which track is to be pursued is open to revision upon the demonstration of what may shortly be called a change of circumstances. I see nothing in section 24(1)(a) to prevent this. On the contrary, I take it to have been the intention of Parliament that the decision should be taken on the fullest information available to the court immediately before the tracks divide. Any other construction may lead to injustice.’
Stephen Brown LJ, McCullough J
[1986] 1 WLR 939, [1986] 3 All ER 17, [1986] Crim LR 557, (1986) 84 Cr App R 81
Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 24(1)
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Stamford Magistrates ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 31-Jul-1997
A challenge was made as to whether the magistrates had jurisdiction in an allegation of burglary, or whether the case should have been committed to the Crown Court. . .
Cited – Jones v South East Surrey Local Justice Area Admn 12-Mar-2010
The defendant sought judicial review of a decision of the magistrates to adjourn a case where, on the day before, a differently constitued bench had refused an adjournment requested by the prosecution. On the first occasion the prosecutor had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.224836
The defendant attained the age of 18 after the offence but before his sentence. Under 18, he would have been subject to an order of detention in a young offenders institution, with a maximum of twelve months. They imposed a sentence of four concurrent detention and training orders totaling 18 months.
Held: The 1963 Act, as amended, allowed the magistrates to impose this sentence. That power had been effective in assisting the magistrates’ decision on where the matter should be tried. There had been no implied repeal of the section in the 1963 Act.
Lord Justice Keene and Mr Justice Goldring
Times 06-Mar-2002
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 100, Magistrates Court Act 1980 25(6), Children and Young Persons Act 1963 29
England and Wales
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.167722
The applicant was an elderly illiterate lady. The magistrates had found that she had culpably neglected to pay her community charge. A suspended sentence of imprisonment was first imposed, and then effected in her absence. Held the Magistrates were under an obligation to enquire as to the adequacy of the service by recorded delivery. Costs were ordered against the magistrates despite their having only filed affidavit evidence.
Mr Justice Laws
[1997] EWHC Admin 566
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Erewash Borough Council and Ilkestone Justices ex parte Smedberg and Smedberg 1994
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.137511
The defendant had been convicted of felling trees without a licence. He claimed to have received assurances from the Forestry Commission that he would not be prosecuted. He said the prosecution was an abuse of process. The magistrates held that their jurisdiction on abuse was limited to the fairness of the procedures within the court.
[1997] EWHC Admin 452
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Brentford Justices Ex parte Wong QBD 1981
The defendant had been involved in a traffic accident. Very shortly before the expiry of the six month time limit, the prosecutor issued a careless driving summons apparently in order to preserve the possibility of a prosecution without yet having . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.137397
Where magistrates of a burgh were by statute authorised to make bye-laws in regard to the opening and closing of a certain class of shop, to wit, ice-cream and aerated water shops, ‘the hours for business not being more restricted than fifteen hours daily,’ held that a duly confirmed bye-law whereby keeping open save between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. was prohibited was not ultra vires or unreasonable, and that an action brought to reduce the bye-law on averments to the effect that little or no business being in practice possible in such shops before 9 a.m., by fixing the opening hour at 7 a.m. fifteen hours ‘for business’ were not given, was irrelevant.
Lord Chancellor ( Loreburn), Lord Ashbourne, Lord Macnaghten, Lord James of Hereford, Lord Robertson, Lord Atkinson, and Lord Collins
[1907] UKHL 366, 44 SLR 366
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.622281
Judicial review of issue of search warrants.
[2018] EWHC 2024 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620636