Cheema and Others v Nottingham and Newark Magistrates Court and Another: Admn 11 Dec 2013

The claimants challenged the issue and implementation of a search warrant,and sought the return of items seized. The police acknowledged that the search had been unlawful, but sought to retain the materials seized. The warrant had been presented as a specified premises warrant, but should have been an ‘all premises’ warrant.

Treacy LJ, King J
[2013] EWHC 3790 (Admin)
Bailii
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 8
England and Wales

Police, Magistrates

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518908

Lee and Others v Solihull Magistrates Court and Another: Admn 5 Dec 2013

The claimant challenged search warrants issued by the respondents, on the grounds first that the warrants were too wide in the description of the property which might be seized, that the description of property sought in the warrant was so wide that the Magistrates could not have been satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for believing that such material was likely to be relevant evidence, and that the applicants for the warrant, Customs and Excise officers were seriously at fault in the failure to disclose relative materials to the request for the warrant.
Held: ‘the entry, search and seizure at both sets of premises was unlawful. The purpose of the mandatory requirement imposed by Section 15(6)(b) is to enable anyone interested in the execution of a warrant to know what are the limits of the power of search or seizure which is being granted. This is necessary so that such a person can be put in a position to enable him or her to challenge the lawfulness of the seizure of any particular item. Accordingly, it is now well established that the terms of the warrant must be precise and intelligible by reference exclusively to its own terms and not by reference to any other material.’
and ‘The execution of a search warrant at private or business premises is a significant invasion upon individual liberty. Parliament has rightly required that certain safeguards be put in place. Those safeguards are contained in Sections 15 and 16 of PACE 1984, and Section 15(1) specifically provides that a failure to observe the requirements of those sections will render the entry and search unlawful. I have no doubt that that is the case here.
It is to be observed that a failure or failures of compliance with the provisions of Section 15 or Section 16 do not render the warrant itself unlawful, but rather the entry on or search of premises.’
Grond 2 was not made out and ground 3 not purused.

Treacy LJ, King J
[2013] EWHC 3779 (Admin)
Bailii
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 8(1)(c) 15
Citing:
CitedGlenn 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 . .
CitedBurgin and Purcell v Commission of Police for The Metropolis and Others Admn 13-Jul-2011
The applicants renewed the applications for leave to bring judicial review of decisions to seek and to issue search warrants, and later decisions to arrest them.
Held: When considering the validity of a search warrant the warrant as a whole . .
CitedAnand, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs Admn 9-Oct-2012
The claimant challenged the lawfulness of a search warrant issued for the respondent. The company had claimed Film Tax Relief, but the revenue had been unable to trace a supplier, and believed the invoice to be bogus.
Held: The warrants wer . .
CitedHoque and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs Admn 13-Mar-2013
The claimant sought judicial review of warrants issued at the request of the respondent, saying that they failed to comply with the requirements of section 15, and that no magistrate could reasonably have been satisfied that section 8 had been . .
CitedVan Der Pijl and Another v The Crown Court At Kingston Admn 21-Dec-2012
The claimants challenged search warrants and the seizure of materials under the warrants.
Held: The Court emphasised the need for precision within the warrant itself. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Taxes Management

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518792

Rahmdezfouli, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Court Sitting At Wood Green and Another: Admn 9 Oct 2013

The appellant challenged the refusal to allow him to vacate a guilty plea to a charge of failures to comply with a planning enforcement notice. It had been agreed that the magistrates had failed to ask the two questions required under the 1980 Act. The claimant contended that the Crown Court Judge erred in refusing to allow him to vacate his plea after finding as a fact that the magistrates’ court clerk had ‘failed to ask the statutory questions of the applicant’ as required by s.17A of the MCA. It was not disputed that the requisite procedure had not been followed ‘in any respect’, and ‘defence counsel conferred with his client and on coming into court told the court that his client wished to plead guilty to the offence. It was argued by the Interested Party . . that it was therefore appropriate for the court to accept from what counsel said that this defendant was fully aware of the implications of the offence to which he was intending to plead guilty and should therefore be regarded as having been fully informed before making that decision.’
The claimant, submitted: ‘that there was a requirement that the defendant should at the least have explained to him by the court, in ordinary language as the section requires, of four essential things: that the offence he faced was an either way offence; that he would be asked for an indication as to his plea if the case proceeded to trial; that if he indicated he wished to plead guilty that would be treated as a guilty plea; and fourthly that the court had the power to send him to the Crown Court for sentence if it thought right so to do.’Mackay J replied: ‘The issue therefore in this claim is whether it was the intention of Parliament that a failure to follow the statutory procedure laid down in section 17A rendered all subsequent proceedings invalid and a nullity, or whether they were to be considered a procedural failure.’ The claimant submiitted that the failure in that case ‘went to the heart of the court’s jurisdiction’. A magistrates’ court only derived its jurisdiction from statute and was only entitled to try an either way offence, as opposed to a summary offence, where the statutory requirement has been fully complied with. Mackay J observed that there was ‘a clear line of authority’ supporting that submission. He referred, inter alia, to Cockshott and Ex p Machin. He noted that theauthorities were not disapproved in Ashton. Quashing the conviction, Mackay J reasoned: ‘Adopting the criterion expressed in paragraph 4 of Ashton and not disapproved by the House of Lords in [Clarke] the legislature in enacting section 17A must have intended . . acting in line with then existing authority, that where a magistrates’ court declined or failed to follow the requirements of the section it was acting without jurisdiction every bit as much as if, for instance, it had purported to try a defendant on a charge of homicide . . ..’

Moses LJ, MacKay J
[2013] EWHC 2998 (Admin), [2013] WLR(D) 377, (2013) 177 JP 677, [2014] 1 All ER 567, [2014] Crim LR 158, 177 JP 677, [2014] 1 Cr App R 20
Bailii, WLRD
Magistrates Court Act 1980 17A
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Kent Justices, Ex parte Machin 1952
The applicant had been charged before the justices with indictable offences. He consented to summary trial but it had not been explained to him that he might be committed to the Quarter Sessions for sentence.
Held: The court allowed . .
CitedClarke, Regina v; Regina v McDaid HL 6-Feb-2008
An indictment had not been signed despite a clear statutory provision that it should be. The defects were claimed to have been cured by amendment before sentence.
Held: The convictions failed. Sections 1(1) and 2(1) of the 1933 Act which . .

Cited by:
CitedWestminster City Council v Owadally and Another Admn 17-May-2017
Defendant must plea to charge, and not counsel
The defendants had, through their barrister, entered pleas of guilty, but the crown court had declared the convictions invalid because this had to have been done by the defendants personally, and remitted the cases and the confiscation proceedings . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 21 November 2021; Ref: scu.516326

B v Leeds Crown Court and Another: Admn 24 Feb 2016

Appeal by way of case stated from the Leeds Crown Court raises a question about the implications for the sentencing of youths of restrictions on the powers of a magistrates’ court to sentence adult offenders.

Simon LJ, Leggatt J
[2016] EWHC 1230 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Magistrates, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.564801

Williams v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 24 Jul 2009

Thomas LJ said: ‘When the magistrates were faced with the application for an amendment, the law was clear and remains clear. The principles are set out in Section 123 and 127 of the Magistrates’ Court Act [1980] and in the single decision of this court to which it is necessary to refer, R v Scunthorpe Justices, ex parte McPhee and Gallagher [1998] 162 JPR 635.’
As to the excuse that the courts were busy: ‘It may also have been the case that the lists in the court at Chorley are very busy. It would be somewhat surprising to find that the Court is so busy that a case has to go off from from October 2007 to February 2008. That is no doubt a matter that can be carefully looked into by the presiding judges of the circuit. However, the fact that a trial date has been fixed and the court is busy highlights the real problem in this case and why in my view it was not in the interests of justice to grant the amendment.
Modern case management set out in the criminal procedure rules requires a proper attention to case management duties. There was no excuse whatsoever of counsel who has appeared for the CPS has proffered none for the failure to raise the application to make the amendment of the case management hearing on 3 July 2007; given that it was over 5 months after the charge and the case was a simple one. Even if that could be excused, there is no excuse for the failure to apply to the Court for a short hearing to determine the question of the amendment once the point was appreciated on 7 August 2007.’ and ‘However, it is a clear and longstanding principle of our courts that justice must be delivered with promptitude. What has changed is the obligation of the parties to ensure that the Court, whose resources are limited, are able to use those resourcess efficiently by the proper conduct of case management under the criminal procedure rules.
The reason, therefore, it seems to me why it is over all in the interests of justice to decide the case in the way in which I consider it should be decided, is that there was a fundamental failure on the part of the Crown properly to have regard in their preparation of this case to the observance of the criminal procedure rules, particularly in the case management hearing and to the interests of justice, those interests are best served in this case by disallowing the amendment to the charge.’

Thomas LJ, Burton J
[2009] EWHC 2354 (Admin)
Bailii
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 123 127
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Scunthorpe Justices ex parte McPhee and Gallagher Admn 24-Feb-1998
The defendant faced a charge of robbery. More than six months after the alleged offence the prosecution sought to add alternate charges including one of common assault. The magistrates declined jurisdiction on the ground that, more than six months . .

Cited by:
CitedCrann v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 27-Feb-2013
The defendant appealed by case stated against an order allowing the amendment of an information against him. He was first accused of failing to provide a specimen of breath for testing after being stopped and suspected of driving with excess . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.376007

B v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary: QBD 5 Apr 2000

The defendant appealed the making of a sex offender order under 1998 Act. The justices had found that the defendant was a sex offender within section 2(1)(a) and that he had acted on a number of occasions in a way which brought him within section 2(1)(b).
Held: The civil standard of proof is flexible and can vary with the seriousness of the allegation made. The court considered the standard of proof applicable: ‘In a serious case such as the present the difference between the two standards is, in truth, largely illusory. I have no doubt that, in deciding whether the condition in section 2(1)(a) is fulfilled, a magistrates’ court should apply a civil standard of proof which will for all practical purposes be indistinguishable from the criminal standard. In deciding whether the condition in section 2(1)(b) is fulfilled the magistrates’ court should apply the civil standard with the strictness appropriate to the seriousness of the matters to be proved and the implications of proving them.’ and ‘There is no room for doubt about the mischief against which this legislation is directed, which is the risk of re-offending by sex offenders who have offended in the past and have shown a continuing propensity to offend. Parliament might have decided to wait until, if at all, the offender did offend again and then appropriate charges could be laid on the basis of that further offending. Before 1998 there was effectively no choice but to act in that way. But the obvious disadvantage was that, by the time the offender had offended again, some victim had suffered. The rationale of section 2 was, by means of an injunctive order, to seek to avoid the contingency of any further suffering by any further victim. It would also of course be to the advantage of a defendant if he were to be saved from further offending. As in the case of a civil injunction, a breach of the court’s order may attract a sanction. But, also as in the case of a civil injunction, the order, although restraining the defendant from doing that which is prohibited, imposes no penalty or disability upon him. I am accordingly satisfied that, as a matter of English domestic law, the application is a civil proceeding, as Parliament undoubtedly intended it to be.’
Lord Bingham of Cornhill: ‘The rationale of section 2 was, by means of an injunctive order, to seek to avoid the contingency of any further suffering by any further victim. It would also of course be to the advantage of a defendant if he were to be saved from further offending. As in the case of a civil injunction, a breach of the court’s order may attract a sanction. But, also as in the case of a civil injunction, the order, although restraining the defendant from doing that which is prohibited, imposes no penalty or disability upon him. I am accordingly satisfied that, as a matter of English domestic law, the application is a civil proceeding, as Parliament undoubtedly intended it to be.’ and ‘If anyone is the subject of a prohibitory court order for breach of which he is liable to severe punishment, that person is entitled to know, clearly and unambiguously, what conduct he must avoid to comply with the order. Such clarity is essential for him. It is scarcely less essential for any authority responsible for policing compliance with the order and for any court called upon to decide whether the terms of the order have been broken. The order should be expressed in simple terms, easily understood even by those who, like the appellant, are not very bright. If the order is wider than is necessary for the purposes of protecting the public from serious harm from the defendant, the order will not meet the requirements of section 2(4) of the 1998 Act and will fall foul of the Convention requirement that the means employed, if restrictive of guaranteed rights, should be necessary and proportionate to the legitimate ends towards which they are directed.’

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, CJ
[2001] 1 WLR 340, [2000] Po LR 98, [2000] EWHC 559 (QB), [2001] 1 All ER 562
Bailii
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 2
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedIn re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) HL 14-Dec-1995
Evidence allowed – Care Application after Abuse
Children had made allegations of serious sexual abuse against their step-father. He was acquitted at trial, but the local authority went ahead with care proceedings. The parents appealed against a finding that a likely risk to the children had still . .

Cited by:
CitedGough and Another v Chief Constable of Derbyshire CA 20-Mar-2002
The appellants challenged the legality under European law of orders under the Act restricting their freedom of movement, after suspicion of involvement in football violence.
Held: Although the proceedings under which orders were made were . .
CitedIn re LU (A Child); In re LB (A Child) (Serious Injury: Standard of Proof); re U (A Child) (Department for Education and Skills intervening) CA 14-May-2004
In each case, the other parent appealed care orders where she had been found to have injured her children. In each case the sole evidence was the injury to the child’s health and expert medical evidence. The cases were referred following the . .
CitedRe ET (Serious Injuries: Standard of Proof) FD 2003
The court heard a care application in which the baby had sustained skull, brain and other injuries alleged to be at the hands of her parents.
Held: The standard of proof was the civil standard of the balance of probabilities and directed . .
DistinguishedRegina (DJ) v Mental Health Review Tribunal; Regina (AN) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region) Admn 11-Apr-2005
Each applicant sought judicial review of the refusal of the tribunal to authorise their release from detention under the 1983 Act, saying that the Tribunal had accepted evidence to a lower standard of proof.
Held: Neither the criminal standard . .
CitedRegina (McCann and Others) v Manchester Crown Court CA 9-Mar-2001
Proceedings applying for an anti-social behaviour order, were properly civil proceedings, with civil standards of evidence, and the Human Rights Act provisions relating to criminal proceedings, were not applicable either. The section included acts . .
CitedClingham (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 . .
CitedCampbell v Hamlet (as executrix of Simon Alexander) PC 25-Apr-2005
(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant was an attorney. A complaint was made that he had been given money to buy land, but neither had the land been conveyed nor the money returned. The complaint began in 1988, but final speeches were not heard until . .
CitedW, Regina (on the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 8-Jun-2005
The defendant appealed a conviction for breaching an anti-social behaviour order. The order had prohibited him from committing any criminal act. It was now challenged as being too wide a prohibition.
Held: ‘The defendant had already been . .
CitedAN, Regina (on the Application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region) and others CA 21-Dec-2005
The appellant was detained under section 37 of the 1983 Act as a mental patient with a restriction under section 41. He sought his release.
Held: The standard of proof in such applications remained the balance of probabilities, but that . .
CitedFiona Trust and Holding Corp and others v Privalov and others ComC 20-Oct-2006
The parties disputed whether their claim should be arbitrated.
Held: A claim as to whether the contract itself had been made was not one which could be arbitrated by provisions in that contract. It does not arise ‘under’ the contract. The . .
CitedIn re D; Doherty, Re (Northern Ireland); Life Sentence Review Commissioners v D HL 11-Jun-2008
The Sentence Review Commissioners had decided not to order the release of the prisoner, who was serving a life sentence. He had been released on licence from a life sentence and then committed further serious sexual offences against under-age girls . .
CitedLangley v Preston Crown Court and others CACD 30-Oct-2008
The defendant sought to appeal against a ‘stand-alone’ anti-social behaviour order. The parties disputed whether an appeal lay. The act created an appeal against the making of an order but in this case it was a renewed order.
Held: In the . .
CitedIn re S-B (Children) (Care proceedings: Standard of proof) SC 14-Dec-2009
A child was found to have bruising consistent with physical abuse. Either or both parents might have caused it, but the judge felt it likely that only one had, that he was unable to decide which, and that they were not so serious that he had to say . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Evidence

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.179863

Lamont-Perkins v Royal Society for The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals (RSPCA): Admn 24 Apr 2012

The defendant had been convicted of animal cruelty. She appealed to the Crown Court, and now appealed against rulings made by the judge as to the time limits for a prosecution under the 2006 Act in the Magistrates Court. She said that the RSPCA conducting a private prosecution was not a ‘prosecutor’ able to take the benefit of section 31 of the 2006 Act. She argued that the power under section 31 of the 2006 Act to certify conclusively for the purposes of limitation when matters came to the prosecutor’s knowledge was a power that was restricted to state prosecutors and not to private prosecutors.
Held: After a review of the provisions of the Act, the power was a power available to all prosecutors.
The phrase ‘the prosecutor’ in section 31 of the 2006 Act is not limited to prosecutors who prosecute pursuant to a power conferred by some statutory provision but applies to anyone who initiates a prosecution under the Act. The absence of a remedy by way of judicial review against a private prosecutor was not a basis to conclude that section 31 was to be interpreted so as to exclude private prosecutors from its ambit. The magistrates’ court in which a prosecution is brought can investigate whether or not the proceedings have been brought within the time limit specified in section 31 of the Act and it can also investigate whether any certificate issued under section 31(2) should be treated as conclusive of the facts stated therein. Once an appropriate procedure exists for contending that the prosecutor has not brought proceedings within time or that the certificate issued under section 31(2) should not be treated as conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein the absence of a remedy by way of judicial review loses much of its significance.

Sir John Thomas P
[2012] EWHC 1002 (Admin)
Bailii
Animal Welfare Act 2006 4 31, Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 127(10
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedKerr v John Mottram Ltd ChD 1940
The court considered an application by a shareholder of a company to enforce an alleged contract for the sale of shares that he claimed were offered to him at a meeting of the company. The minutes of the company meeting did not support the . .
CitedRegina v Haringey Magistrates’ Court ex parte Amvrosiou Admn 13-Jun-1996
When the appellant appeared at the Magistrates’ Court to answer a charge of driving whilst uninsured, a preliminary point was taken on her behalf that the prosecution had not been commenced within 6 months of the date on which evidence sufficient in . .
CitedTerra Woningen BV v The Netherlands ECHR 17-Dec-1996
A court had considered itself bound by a decision of the Provincial Executive within the Netherlands adverse to the applicant company.
Held: That was in breach of article 6(1). There was not access to a tribunal with sufficient jurisdiction to . .
CitedMorgans v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 29-Dec-1998
The defendant argued that once the prosecutor had all the material on which the prosecution was eventually brought, then for the purposes of section 11(2) time began to run.
Held: When considering the time limits for a prosecution under the . .
CitedMorgans v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 18-Feb-2000
Without a warrant, the police had arranged for a call logger to retain details of the calls made, including the number called, time and duration. The dialing itself was a communication, which established a connection, through which further . .
CitedBurwell v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 1-May-2009
The defendant appealed against the decision of the Magistrates to accept a prosecutor’s certificate as to compliance with time limits for commencing the prosecution. He argued that the police had all the evidence in their possession at an earlier . .

Cited by:
AppliedBrowning v Lewes Crown Court and RSPCA Admn 24-Apr-2012
The claimant appealed against the refusal by the respondent to state a case regarding its conviction of the claimant of offences under the 2006 Act.
Held: In view of the case of Perkins, the application failed save that the Crown Court should . .
CitedVirgin Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Zinga CACD 24-Jan-2014
Zinga had been convicted of conspiracy to defraud in a private prosecution brought by Virgin Media. After dismissal of the appeal against conviction, Virgin pursued confiscation proceedings. Zinga appealed against refusal of its argument that it was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.452904

Farley v Child Support Agency and Another; Farley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (No. 2): HL 28 Jun 2006

Magistrates were wrong to think they had a discretion to look at the validity of a liability assessment under child support legislation. The Act gave the payer alternative avenues of appeal, and therefore the Act should be read as it stated and the magistrates had no such jurisdiction. ‘section 33(4) precludes the justices from investigating whether a maintenance assessment, or maintenance calculation in the current terminology, is a nullity. ‘
Lord Nicholls said: ‘The need for a strict approach to the interpretation of an ouster provision . . was famously confirmed in the leading case of Anisminic . . This strict approach, however, is not appropriate if an effective means of challenging the validity of a maintenance assessment is provided elsewhere. Then section 33(4) is not an ouster provision. Rather, it is part of a statutory scheme which allocates jurisdiction to determine the validity of an assessment and decide whether the defendant is a ‘liable person’ to a court other than the magistrates’ court.’ and ‘This statute introduced a new child maintenance scheme. The scheme was intended to provide an effective, cheap and speedy means to enforce parental support obligations. Another aim, of considerable importance, was to reduce dependence on social security and the cost to the tax payer.’

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance
[2006] UKHL 31, Times 30-Jun-2006, [2006] Fam Law 735, [2006] 3 All ER 935, [2006] 2 FCR 713, [2006] 1 WLR 1817
Bailii
Child Support Act 1991 33(4), Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 , Child Support Act 1995
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromFarley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (No 2) CA 22-Jun-2005
The Court of Apeal had previously considered an appeal from the grant of a liability order made by magistrates. It had become clear that the order had been made without jurisdiction.
Held: The order must be set aside. The court had no . .
CitedFarley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Another CA 25-Jan-2005
The Respondent had sought a liability order against the appellant, the non-resident parent in respect of child support maintenance arrears. The appellant had asked the magistrates to consider whether he was liable to pay child support maintenance, . .
At First InstanceFarley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 12-Jul-2004
The defendant and his wife were separated. The Child Support Agency assessed the contributions he was to make, and eventually pursued him in the magistrates court for arrears. The defendant argued that whilst the Act did prevent the magistrates . .
CitedSecretary of State for Social Security v Shotton and Others QBD 30-Jan-1996
Magistrates have no power to question an assessment made by the Child Support Agency when making a deduction order. . .
CitedAnisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission HL 17-Dec-1968
There are no degrees of nullity
The plaintiffs had owned mining property in Egypt. Their interests were damaged and or sequestrated and they sought compensation from the Respondent Commission. The plaintiffs brought an action for the declaration rejecting their claims was a . .
CitedSecretary of State for Social Security and Another v Harmon and Another CA 5-Jun-1998
. .

Cited by:
CitedA, Regina (on The Application of) v B; Regina (A) v Director of Establishments of the Security Service SC 9-Dec-2009
B, a former senior member of the security services wished to publish his memoirs. He was under contractual and statutory obligations of confidentiality. He sought judicial review of a decision not to allow him to publish parts of the book, saying it . .
CitedChild Maintenance and Enforcement Commission v Gibbons; Same v Karoonian CA 30-Oct-2012
Non-resident parents in each case appealed against suspended orders of imprisonment for non-payment of child support. They argued that the procedures used were indistinguishable from those held to be human rights non-compliant in Mubarak.
Child Support, Magistrates

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.242926

Weightman v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 6 Mar 2007

Magistrates to identify reasons for finding guilt

The defendant appealed agains his conviction under section 172 of the 1988 Act. He had been abroad when his car attracted the speeding fine, but had been unable to identify which iof the several people who might have driven it, had done so.
Held: The decision of the magistrates left the defendant unable to identify the reasoning of the magistrates: ‘the oral judgment fails to explain in any satisfactory way why the statutory defence was rejected. That amounted to an error of law. That being so, and in the light of my earlier holding that the crown court’s decision appeared to be Wednesbury unreasonable in that there were no recorded facts on which the decision was based, I would hold that the appeal must be allowed.’

Smith LJ, Gross J
[2007] EWHC 634 (Admin), [2007] RTR 565
Bailii
Road Traffic Act 1988 172(3)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedMarshall v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 17-Jun-2015
A car was seen speeding. Husband and wife each said that they did not know who was driving it in response to notices requiring that information. Mrs M now appealed against her conviction under section 172. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Magistrates

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.251159

Kay and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Leeds Magistrates’ Court and Another: Admn 23 May 2018

Full Duty of Disclosure on Private Prosecutor

The claimant challenged the issue of a summons by the magistrate on the complaint of a private prosecutor.
Held: The challenge succeeded. A private prosecutor and his lawyers had a duty of candour and of full disclosure. The prosecutor having failed in this, and the magistrate having failed in his own duty to address such a failure, the summons was quashed.
As to the threshold test for the issuance of a summons: ‘(1) The magistrate must ascertain whether the allegation is an offence known to the law, and if so whether the essential ingredients of the offence are prima facie present; that the offence alleged is not time-barred; that the court has jurisdiction; and whether the informant has the necessary authority to prosecute.
(2) If so, generally the magistrate ought to issue the summons, unless there are compelling reasons not to do so – most obviously that the application is vexatious (which may involve the presence of an improper ulterior purpose and/or long delay); or is an abuse of process; or is otherwise improper. . . (4) Whether the applicant has previously approached the police may be a relevant circumstance.’

Gross LJ, Sweeney J
[2018] EWHC 1233 (Admin), [2018] WLR(D) 319, [2018] 2 Cr App R 27, [2018] 4 WLR 91, [2018] Crim LR 855, [2018] LLR 560
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina (DPP) v Sunderland MC Admn k 2014
When determining an application for a summons a magistrate must ascertain whether the allegation is of an offence known to law, and if so whether the essential ingredients of the offence are prima facie present
The court observed: ‘[The . .

Cited by:
CitedJohnson v Westminster Magistrates’ Court Admn 3-Jul-2019
Public Office Misconduct – Acting As not While
The claimant sought judicial review of a decision to issue a summons against him alleging three offences of misconduct in public office. He was said to have issue misleading statements in support of the campaign leading up to the Referendum on . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.618111

Powys County Council v Hurst: Admn 4 Jul 2018

Pension not attachable for Council Tax arrears

Recovery of unpaid council tax – whether pension was ‘earnings’ for attachment of earnings order.
Held: The council’s appeal succeeded. The pension was not available to be attached, and it had exhausted all alternatives to committal.

Hickinbottom, Singh LJJ
[2018] EWHC 1684 (Admin), [2018] WLR(D) 413
Bailii, WLRD
Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992
England and Wales

Rating, Magistrates

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.619004

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 by the defendant’s officers. He now pursued a private prosecution.
Held: The review was granted. The issue of a summons involves the exercise of a judicial discretion. The use of proceedings to satisfy an ulterior motive can amount to an abuse, which can be stayed at a later point. In this case there was no evidence of the Chief Constable’s personal involvement at any stage in or near the actions complained of. There is, in general, no doctrine of criminal vicarious liability at common law. This case did not fall with any of the three exceptions. ‘[T]o pursue, a case which was . . hopelessly misconceived, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court, is to be guilty of the kind of serious misconduct which amply merits, indeed requires, the exercise by the Magistrates’ Court of its power to stay proceedings as an abuse of the process.’

Munby LJ, Keith J
[2010] EWHC 935 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Brentford Justices ex parte Catlin 1975
A decision by magistrates whether to issue a summons pursuant to information laid involves the exercise of a judicial function, and is not merely administrative. A summons (or warrant) is merely machinery for giving a defendant notice of the . .
CitedLondon Borough of Newham, Regina (on the Application of) v Stratford Magistrates’ Court Admn 12-Oct-2004
. .
CitedRegina v Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court ex parte Fiona Watts Admn 8-Feb-1999
The defendant sought to have dismissed as an abuse of proces charges against her that as an officer of Customs and Excise prosecuting the now private prosecutor, she had committed various offences.
Held: The magistrate was vested with . .
CitedRoberts v Chief Constable of Cheshire Constabulary CA 26-Jan-1999
The claimant had been detained at 11.25pm. His detention was not reviewed by an inspector until 7.45am the next morning, although it had been considered in the interim at 1.45am by an officer of junior rank. The plaintiff sued for unlawful . .
CitedRegina v Rahman CACD 1985
False imprisonment is a common law offence, defined as consisting in ‘the unlawful and intentional or reckless restraint of a victim’s freedom of movement from a particular place. In other words it is unlawful detention which stops the victim moving . .
CitedRegina v Stephens 1866
The court was asked whether the owner of a slate quarry was answerable for a public nuisance caused by his workmen without his knowledge and contrary to his general orders.
Held: Mellor J: ‘It is quite true that this in point of form is a . .
CitedRegina (on the Applications of Salubi and Another) v Bow Street Magistrates Court Admn 10-May-2002
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 . .
CitedRegina v Hutchins CACD 1988
The defendant was at a party where he took a range of drugs. He was accused of attacking one girl, and then imprisoning another with a neighbour. He appealed against his convictions for unlawful imprisonment and kidnapping.
Held: The appeal . .
CitedRex v Huggins and Barnes KBD 1730
Gaoler – Murder of Prisoner by Lack of Care
The defendant Huggins was warden of the Fleet Prison. A prisoner, Arne, died in 1725. Barnes, a gaoler had put him in a room ‘without fire, chamber-pot or close-stool, the walls being damp and unwholesome, and the room built over the common sewer’. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Vicarious Liability, Magistrates

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.408832

Regina v West London Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Klahn: QBD 1979

The issue of a summons by a magistrate is a judicial act: ‘The duty of a magistrate in considering an application for the issue of a summons is to exercise a judicial discretion in deciding whether or not to issue a summons. It would appear that he should at the very least ascertain: (1) whether the allegation is of an offence known to the law and if so whether the essential ingredients of the offence are prima facie present; (2) that the offence alleged is not ‘out of time’; (3) that the court has jurisdiction; (4) whether the informant has the necessary authority to prosecute. In addition to these specific matters it is clear that he may and indeed should consider whether the allegation is vexatious: see Rex v Bros.
Since the matter is properly within the magistrate’s discretion it would be inappropriate to attempt to lay down an exhaustive catalogue of matters to which consideration should be given. Plainly he should consider the whole of the relevant circumstances.’ and
‘In the overwhelming majority of cases the magistrate will not need to consider material beyond that provided by the informant. In my judgment, however, he must be able to inform himself of all relevant facts. Mr Woolf, who appeared as amicus curiae, and to whom the court is indebted for his assistance, submitted that the magistrate has a residual discretion to hear a proposed defendant if he felt it necessary for the purpose of reaching a decision.We would accept this contention.
The magistrate must be able to satisfy himself that it is a proper case in which to issue a summons. There can be no question, however, of conducting a preliminary hearing. Until a summons has been issued there is no allegation to meet; no charge has been made. A proposed defendant has no locus standi and no right at this stage to be heard. Whilst it is conceivable that a magistrate might seek information from him in exceptional circumstances it must be entirely within the discretion of the magistrate whether to do so.’

Lord Widgery CJ
[1979] 1 WLR 933
England and Wales
Citing:
ApprovedRegina v Bros 1902
A magistrate should consider, before issuing a summons, whether it appears to be vexatious. . .
CitedRegina v Wilson QBD 1957
‘The principle that, once the summing up is concluded, no further evidence ought to be given, must be maintained in every case, and, if further evidence is allowed at that stage, . . the conviction will be quashed.’ The court considered the nature . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina v Newcastle Upon Tyne Magistrates’ Court ex parte Still, Lawlan, Davidson, Pryor, and Forrest Admn 18-Sep-1996
A man was accused of a series of mortgage frauds. The defendants each gave evidence to the court. He made a complaint of perjury against each of them. The current defendants sought judicial review of a refusal to discharge the summonses.
Held: . .
CitedAugusto Pinochet Ugarte and In the Matter of an Application for Leave To Move for Judicial Review Regina v Evans (Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate) Admn 28-Oct-1998
A provisional warrant had been issued by a magistrate for the arrest of the former president of Chile when visting London. The arrest had been in response to an extradition request from a judge in Spain and related to allegations of criminal acts by . .
CitedJones v Whalley HL 26-Jul-2006
The appellant had assaulted the respondent. He had accepted a caution for the offence, but the claimant had then pursued a private prosecution. He now appealed refusal of a stay, saying it was an abuse of process.
Held: The defendant’s appeal . .
CitedRegina v Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court ex parte Fiona Watts Admn 8-Feb-1999
The defendant sought to have dismissed as an abuse of proces charges against her that as an officer of Customs and Excise prosecuting the now private prosecutor, she had committed various offences.
Held: The magistrate was vested with . .
CitedCharlson, 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 . .
ApprovedGreen, 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 . .
CitedPercy, Regina (on the Application of) v Corby Magistrates’ Court Admn 7-Feb-2008
The claimant sought judicial review of a decision of the magistrates not to issue summonses against two police officers. She had been demonstrating near a US base, but had refused to intervene and allowed a US officer to unlawfully arrest and detain . .
CitedScopelight Ltd and Others v Chief of Police for Northumbria CA 5-Nov-2009
The claimant sought return of items removed by the defendants under the 1984 Act. A decision had been made against a prosecution by the police. The police wished to hold onto the items to allow a decision from the second defendant.
Held: The . .
CitedBrowning v Lewes Crown Court and RSPCA Admn 24-Apr-2012
The claimant appealed against the refusal by the respondent to state a case regarding its conviction of the claimant of offences under the 2006 Act.
Held: In view of the case of Perkins, the application failed save that the Crown Court should . .
CitedBall v Johnson 29-May-2019
Summons granted for political lies allegation
(Westminster Magistrates Court) The court gave its reasons for acceding to a request for the issue of a summons requiring the defendant to answer a charge for three offences alleging misconduct in a public office.
Held: There was prima facie . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.237556

Mills v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 3 Dec 2008

The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving whilst disqualified, saying that they had had insufficient evidence that he was such. It was not disputed that he was driving. Previous convictions for the same offence had been entered, but the details did not show the sentences imposed, no certificate of disqualification was entered, and it was not formally admitted. The magistrates had said that they relied on answers of ‘no comment’ given at interview.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The prosecution must prove to the criminal standard that the person accused was a disqualified driver, and secondly it can be proved by any admissible means, such as an admission — even a non-formal one by the accused — that he was a disqualified driver. It was wholly inappropriate for the magistrates to have drawn any inference from the lack of comment on the part of the appellant. It is not as if he subsequently relied on any fact or matter which gave rise to the opportunity of drawing the adverse inference from the failure to answer the question.

Scot Baker LJ, Maddison J
[2008] EWHC 3304 (Admin), (2009) 173 JP 157, [2009] RTR 12
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 101(1)(d)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedPattison v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 15-Dec-2005
The court considered the circumstances under which evidence of previous convictions could be admitted against a defendant where he did not admit that he was the same person. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Magistrates, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.293959

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 existed, but equally there was no restriction on the use of such materials in what was an ex parte procedure.
The statutory scheme of PACE and the CJPA itself permits the relevant magistrate or court to have regard to material which cannot on public interest grounds be disclosed to a person affected by a warrant or order. It involves a purely ex parte process, directed to premises, rather than any particular person, and is designed to be operated speedily and simply, on information provided by a constable satisfying a magistrate that there are reasonable grounds for believing the matters stated in section 8(1). There is nothing in the statutory scheme which expressly restricts the information on which the magistrate may act. Parliament made no express provision for the information on which the warrant was sought to take any particular form or to be disclosed, even after the issue of the warrant, to any person affected.
Police had to be candid with the Magistrate, but a requirement that all such material be disclosed to the subject of the investigation would be inhibitive.
Lord Mance, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Hughes, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones
[2018] UKSC 1, [2018] Crim LR 672, [2018] Lloyd’s Rep FC 71, [2018] 2 All ER 303, [2018] AC 236, [2018] 2 WLR 357, [2018] 1 Cr App R 26, [2018] WLR(D) 35, UKSC 2016/0130
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 08112017 am Video, SC 08112017pm video
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 111 113(4), Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 59
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromHaralambous 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 . .
CitedCarnduff v Inspector Rock and Chief Constable West Midlands Police CA 11-May-2001
The claimant was a police informer. Over several years he had given and been paid for information. He claimed that on one occasion he had given information which had led to the arrest of a major criminal, but the police denied that any information . .
CitedAl 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 . .
CitedCronin, Regina (on The Application of) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and Another Admn 20-Nov-2002
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 . .
CitedEnergy Financing Team Ltd and others v The Director of the Serious Fraud Office, Bow Street Magistrates Court Admn 22-Jul-2005
The claimants sought to set aside warrants and executions under them to provide assistance to a foreign court investigating alleged unlawful assistance to companies in Bosnia Herzegovina.
Held: The issue of such a warrant was a serious step. . .
CitedGittins v Central Criminal Court Admn 14-Jan-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of decisions to issues search warrants to HMRC in respect of his premises. HMRC wanted to look for evidence of tax avoidance schemes which it thought might be unlawful. Until the morning of the hearing, HMRC . .
CitedCommissioner of Police for The Metropolis v Bangs Admn 3-Mar-2014
Where the police were objecting to the disclosure to a person affected of information relied upon before a magistrate to obtain a search and seizure warrant, the magistrates’ court was not functus officio, and any challenge to the withholding was an . .
CitedBritish 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 . .
CitedGolfrate Property Management Ltd and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Crown Court At Southwark and Another Admn 25-Mar-2014
The claimants sought to have set aside search and seizure warrants obtained to further enquiries into suspected breaches of EU sanctions against ZANU-PF of Zimbabwe. They alleged non-disclosure and misrepresentation.
Held: A decision to claim . .
CitedThe Competition and Markets Authority v Concordia International Rx (UK) Ltd ChD 16-Nov-2017
The Authority had obtained and executed a search warrant against the defendant’s premises, but now sought to restrain disclosure of the materials upon which it had obtained that warrant, asserting Public Interest Immunity.
Held: An application . .
CitedEntick v Carrington KBD 1765
The Property of Every Man is Sacred
The King’s Messengers entered the plaintiff’s house and seized his papers under a warrant issued by the Secretary of State, a government minister.
Held: The common law does not recognise interests of state as a justification for allowing what . .
CitedRegina v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex parte Rossminster Ltd HL 13-Dec-1979
The House considered the power of an officer of the Board of Inland Revenue to seize and remove materials found on premises which a warrant obtained on application to the Common Serjeant authorised him to enter and search; but where the source of . .
CitedConway v Rimmer HL 28-Feb-1968
Crown Privilege for Documents held by the Polie
The plaintiff probationary police constable had been investigated, prosecuted and cleared of an allegation of theft. He now claimed damages for malicious prosecution, and in the course of the action, sought disclosure of five documents, but these . .
CitedLeander v Sweden ECHR 26-Mar-1987
Mr Leander had been refused employment at a museum located on a naval base, having been assessed as a security risk on the basis of information stored on a register maintained by State security services that had not been disclosed him. Mr Leander . .
CitedMichalak v General Medical Council and Others SC 1-Nov-2017
Dr M had successfully challenged her dismissal and recovered damages for unfair dismissal and race discrimination. In the interim, Her employer HA had reported the dismissal to the respondent who continued their proceedings despite the decision in . .
CitedRegina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, Ex parte T C Coombs and Co HL 1991
The House heard an application judicially to review a notice served by an inspector of taxes under section 20 of the 1970 Act, requiring T C Coombs and Co to deliver or make available for inspection documents in their possession relevant to the tax . .
CitedEsbester v United Kingdom ECHR 2-Apr-1993
(Commission) The claimant had been refused employment within the Central Office of Information. He had been accepted subject to clearance, but that failed. He objected that he had been given no opportunity to object to the material oin which his . .
CitedBank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC 19-Jun-2013
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . .
CitedAttorney General v Danhai Williams and others PC 12-May-1997
(Jamaica) Customs investigating officers on attended the appellant’s premises in the course of an investigation of fraudulent importation. The officers were met by a hostile crowd, and the claimant did not attend for interview as invited. A search . .
CitedHome Office v Tariq SC 13-Jul-2011
(JUSTICE intervening) The claimant pursued Employment Tribunal proceedings against the Immigration Service when his security clearance was withdrawn. The Tribunal allowed the respondent to use a closed material procedure under which it was provided . .
CitedKadi v Commission ECFI 30-Sep-2010
ECFI Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban – Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 – . .
CitedRegina 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, . .
CitedKennedy v United Kingdom ECHR 18-May-2010
The claimant complained that after alleging unlawful interception of his communications, the hearing before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal was not attended by appropriate safeguards. He had been a campaigner against police abuse. His requests to . .
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v AF AN and AE (No 3) HL 10-Jun-2009
The applicants complained that they had been made subject to non-derogating control orders as suspected terrorists, but that the failure to inform them of the allegations or evidence against them was unfair and infringed their human rights. The . .
CitedStanford International Bank Ltd, Re CA 25-Feb-2010
Hughes LJ said: ‘it is essential that the duty of candour laid upon any applicant for an order without notice is fully understood and complied with. It is not limited to a duty not to misrepresent. It consists in a duty to consider what any other . .

Cited by:
CitedThe Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) v Concordia International Rx (UK) Ltd CA 7-Aug-2018
The Authority had obtained a search warrant on an ex parte application. The defendant sought a rehearing, but the Authority sought to rely upon material for which it now asserted public interest immunity in material already used. At first instance, . .
CitedThe Competition and Markets Authority v Concordia International Rx (UK) Ltd ChD 8-Nov-2018
Whether to appoint special advocate. The Authority wished to pursue an investigation relying upon material for which it asserted Public Interest Immunity. . .
CitedThe Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) v Concordia International Rx (UK) Ltd ChD 12-Dec-2018
Challenge to search warrants issued under the 1998 Act. . .
CitedThe Competition and Markets Authority v Concordia International Rx (UK) Ltd ChD 16-Jan-2019
Application to vary search warrant.
Held: Refused. . .
CitedBelhaj and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another SC 4-Jul-2018
Challenge to decision not to prosecute senior Intelligence Service officials for alleged offences in connection with his unlawful rendition and mistreatment in Libya. The issue here was whether on the hearing of the application for judicial review, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.603120

British Sky Broadcasting Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The Central Criminal Court and Another: Admn 21 Dec 2011

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
Bailii
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 9, Official Secrets Act 1989 1
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedMalik 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 . .
CitedRegina 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, . .
CitedAl 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 . .
CitedAl-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 . .
CitedRegina 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 . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromBritish 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 May 2021; Ref: scu.459730

Cronin, Regina (on The Application of) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and Another: Admn 20 Nov 2002

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
Bailii
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 by:
CitedAB and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Huddersfield Magistrates’ Court and Another Admn 10-Apr-2014
ab_huddersfieldAdmn0414
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 . .
CitedHaralambous, 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 . .
CitedHaralambous 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 May 2021; Ref: scu.402518

Regina (on the Applications of Salubi and Another) v Bow Street Magistrates Court: Admn 10 May 2002

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
Bailii
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 51
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRex 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 by:
CitedCraik, 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 May 2021; Ref: scu.172210

Environment Agency v Campbell and Another: QBD 18 May 1998

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: 03 May 2021; Ref: scu.80338

Case XLIX 5 and 6 E6: 1220

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)
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 19 April 2021; Ref: scu.461462

Rawlinson and Hunter Trustee and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Central Criminal Court and Another: Admn 31 Jul 2012

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
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 1987 2(4)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Main judgmentRawlinson and Hunter Trustees Sa and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Central Criminal Court and Another Admn 15-Nov-2012
. .
CitedLord 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 . .
CitedMills and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Sussex Police and Another Admn 25-Jul-2014
mills_sussexAdmn1407
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 . .
CitedMcCann 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 April 2021; Ref: scu.463360

Parish v Director of Public Prosecutions (Orse Parrish v Director of Public Prosecutions): QBD 1 Nov 1999

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
Road Traffic Act 1988
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedNelson v Thompson 1985
. .

Cited by:
CitedBreckon 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 April 2021; Ref: scu.84574

Da Costa and Co (a Firm) and Collins v Thames Magistrates Court and H M Commissioners of Customs and Excise: QBD 25 Jan 2002

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
Bailii
Vallue Added Tax Act 1994 72, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 15(6)(b
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedH, 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.
CitedGlenn 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 March 2021; Ref: scu.167465

Brighton and Hove City Council v Brighton and Hove Justices and Hamdan: QBD 29 Jul 2004

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)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedKenya 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 March 2021; Ref: scu.200305

Wandless, Regina (on The Application of) v Halifax Magistrates’ Court and Another: Admn 2 Apr 2009

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
Bailii

Updated: 25 February 2021; Ref: scu.417126

Cambridge City Council, Regina (On the Application of) v Alex Nestling Ltd: Admn 17 May 2006

[2006] EWHC 1374 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedPerinpanathan, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court and Another CA 4-Feb-2010
perinpanathanCA2010
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, . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 February 2021; Ref: scu.376250

Blouet v Bath and Wansdyke Magistrates Court: Admn 12 Mar 2009

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
Bailii
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 11(1), Mental Health Act 1983 37(3)
England and Wales

Updated: 17 February 2021; Ref: scu.347435

Murray, Regina (on the Application of) v Birmingham Magistrates Court: Admn 1 Apr 2009

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)
Bailii

Updated: 17 February 2021; Ref: scu.347436

Brett v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 16 Mar 2009

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
Bailii
Road Traffic Act 2006 5(2)(a), Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 8A 8B
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedDirector 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 by:
CitedJones v South East Surrey Local Justice Area Admn 12-Mar-2010
jones_sesjaAdmn10
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 . .
CitedBielecki 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 February 2021; Ref: scu.323733

Morris v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 14 Nov 2008

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
Bailii
Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a) 7(7)
England and Wales

Updated: 11 February 2021; Ref: scu.278425

Chiltern District Council, Regina (on the Application of) v Wren Davis Ltd: Admn 24 Jul 2008

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)
Bailii
Environmental Protection Act 1990 80
England and Wales

Updated: 10 February 2021; Ref: scu.276531

C v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 8 Feb 2008

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)
Bailii
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/854.html 39(5)
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoCrawford v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 4-Feb-2008
. .

Cited by:
CitedMohamed, 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 . .
CitedChild 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 February 2021; Ref: scu.267080

Sak v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 13 Nov 2007

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)
Bailii
Cited by:
CitedRegina v EED CACD 28-May-2010
EED_rCACD10
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 February 2021; Ref: scu.261933

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 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)
Bailii
Forestry Act 1967 17(1), Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 127(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRex v Willace 1797
The commencement of a prosecution was held to be ‘the information and proceeding before the magistrate’. . .
CitedPrice 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.
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedDirector 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 . .
MentionedLloyd 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. . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedAtkinson 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 . .

Cited by:
See AlsoRockall 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. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 February 2021; Ref: scu.250593

Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v HM Courts Service (South West Region, Devon and Cornwall Area) and others: Admn 14 Jun 2006

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)
Bailii
Food Safety Act 1990 8
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedMarco (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 . .
CitedRegina 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 January 2021; Ref: scu.243311

Chief Constable of West Midlands Police v White: CA 13 Mar 1992

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
Police (Property) Act 1897 1
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedGough 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 . .
CitedJackson 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 . .
CitedMerseyside Police v Owens Admn 31-May-2012
merseyside_owensAdmn2012
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 January 2021; Ref: scu.194108

Chief Inspector Shields v Devenney: CANI 21 Jan 2005

[2005] NICA 4
Bailii
Northern Ireland
Citing:
CitedRegina 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 January 2021; Ref: scu.222110

H and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Southampton Youth Court: Admn 2 Dec 2004

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)
Bailii
Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 24, Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 91(3)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCrown 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 January 2021; Ref: scu.220543

Regina on the Application of Keating v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council: QBD 22 Jul 2004

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)
Bailii
Children and Young Persons Act 1933 39, Crime and Disorder Act 1998 1D
England and Wales

Updated: 13 January 2021; Ref: scu.200314

W, Regina (on the Application of) v Thetford Youth Justices and Another: Admn 25 Jun 2002

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
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina (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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 January 2021; Ref: scu.175111

Regina v Corby Justices ex parte Agnes Mort: Admn 9 Mar 1998

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
Bailii
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 82(4)(b)(I)
Cited by:
CitedHutt 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 December 2020; Ref: scu.138401

Regina v Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrates ex parte Levy: Admn 16 Jun 1997

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
Bailii
Magistrates’ Court Act 1980
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedSunworld 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 December 2020; Ref: scu.137504

Regina v York Magistrate Court ex parte Grimes: Admn 12 May 1997

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
Bailii
Attachment of Earnings Act 1971 1(3)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedRegina v Newark Justices ex parte Keenaghan and R v Stockport Justices ex parte Conlon Admn 18-Dec-1996
. .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 December 2020; Ref: scu.137406

Ronald and John Popely and Another v D G Scott (Kent County Council): Admn 21 Dec 2000

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
Bailii
Timeshare Act 1992, Magistrates Courts Act 1980 8 11
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina 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. . .
CitedRegina v Chippenham Justices ex parte Harris QBD 28-Jan-1994
. .
CitedRegina v Birmingham City Magistrates’ Court ex parte David Frank Booth Admn 12-May-1999
. .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 December 2020; Ref: scu.135629

Regina v Clerkenwell Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex Parte Hooper: Admn 28 Jan 1998

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
Bailii
Cited by:
CitedHooper 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 . .
Times 19-Nov-04, 42317/98, [2004] ECHR 628

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 December 2020; Ref: scu.86401

Regina v Doncaster Justices ex parte Hannan: QBD 16 Jul 1998

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
Bailii

Updated: 18 December 2020; Ref: scu.86560

Regina (Wardle) v Leeds Crown Court: HL 24 May 2001

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
House of Lords, Bailii
Prosecution of Offences (Custody Time Limits) Regulations 1987 (1987 No 299) 4, Human Rights Act 1998 3
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedANS 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.
[2012] UKSC 30, UKSC 2012/0105

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 December 2020; Ref: scu.86017

Regina v Liverpool Magistrates Court, Ex parte Abiaka: QBD 5 Mar 1999

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
Bailii
Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 16(1)

Updated: 18 December 2020; Ref: scu.85371

Kent County Council v Curtis: QBD 24 Jun 1998

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
Bailii

Updated: 18 December 2020; Ref: scu.82741

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 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 by:
CitedRockall 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 . .
Times 11-May-07, [2007] EWHC 614 (Admin)

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 December 2020; Ref: scu.79996

Regina v Marylebone Magistrates Court ex parte Andrew Clingham: Admn 20 Feb 2001

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
Bailii
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
Citing:
Appealed toClingham (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 . .
Times 21-Oct-02, [2002] UKHL 39, [2002] 3 WLR 1313, [2003] 1 AC 787, [2002] 4 All ER 593, [2003] BLGR 57, [2002] 13 BHRC 482, (2002) 166 JPN 850, (2002) 166 JP 657, [2003] HLR 17, [2002] UKHRR 1286, [2003] 1 Cr App R 27

Cited by:
Appeal fromClingham (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 . .
Times 21-Oct-02, [2002] UKHL 39, [2002] 3 WLR 1313, [2003] 1 AC 787, [2002] 4 All ER 593, [2003] BLGR 57, [2002] 13 BHRC 482, (2002) 166 JPN 850, (2002) 166 JP 657, [2003] HLR 17, [2002] UKHRR 1286, [2003] 1 Cr App R 27

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 December 2020; Ref: scu.79228

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 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)
Citing:
CitedRegina 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 . .
COT, 9 November 1998
CitedRegina 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 . .
Times 28-May-90, (1990) 156 JP 587
CitedChief 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, . .
[1998] EWHC Admin 390

Cited by:
CitedBaxendale-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. . .
[2006] EWHC 643 (Admin), Times 17-May-06, [2006] 3 All ER 675, [2006] 5 Costs LR 696
CitedCambridge 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.
Times 11-Jul-06
CitedMastercard UK Members Forum Ltd Mastercard International Inc CAT 28-Jul-2006
. .
[2006] CAT 15
CitedPerinpanathan, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court and Another CA 4-Feb-2010
perinpanathanCA2010
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, . .
[2010] EWCA Civ 40, [2010] 1 WLR 1508

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 December 2020; Ref: scu.78542

Gage v Wren: 1903

[1903] 67 JP 32
Cited by:
CitedMakro Properties Limited v Nuneaton and Bedworth BC Admn 2012
A minor use will constitute rateable occupation for the purposes of liability to occupied rates. . .
[2012] EWHC 2250 (Admin)
CitedKenya 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 . .
[2013] EWHC 54 (Admin), [2013] WLR(D) 23, [2013] 3 WLR 422, [2013] 2 EGLR 138, [2014] 1 QB 62, [2013] RA 75

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 December 2020; Ref: scu.567243

Regina v Hendon Justices ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 1993

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 by:
CitedCrown 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 . .
[2003] EWHC 1079 (Admin)

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 December 2020; Ref: scu.470924

Regina v Liverpool Juvenile Court ex parte R: 1988

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 by:
CitedRegina v Dhorajiwala CACD 9-Jun-2010
Dhorajiwala_rCACD10
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 . .
[2010] EWCA Crim 1237, (2010) 174 JP 401, [2010] 2 Cr App R 21
CitedBeeres 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, . .
[2014] EWHC 283 (Admin)

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 December 2020; Ref: scu.416720

The Queen v The Inhabitants Of Silkstone: 9 Nov 1842

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
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 16 December 2020; Ref: scu.307960

The Queen, On The Prosecution Of Mappin And Another v Youle: 29 Apr 1861

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
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 16 December 2020; Ref: scu.284289

The King v Mitchell: 1913

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 by:
CitedPadfield 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 . .
[1968] AC 997, [1968] UKHL 1, [1968] 1 All ER 694, [1968] 2 WLR 924

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 December 2020; Ref: scu.272549

Regina v Ayu: CCA 1959

It is not open to the justices to attach specific conditions to a binding-over order.
[1959] 43 CAR 31
Cited by:
CitedHashman 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, . .
(1999) 30 EHRR 241, 25594/94, [1999] ECHR 133, [2000] Crim LR 185, 8 BHRC 104

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 December 2020; Ref: scu.261941

Regina v Clerk to Medway Justices ex parte Department of Health and Social Security: 1986

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 by:
CitedGreen, 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 . .
[2007] EWHC 2785 (Admin)

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 December 2020; Ref: scu.261813

Doble v David Grieg Ltd: 1972

Forbes J
[1972] All ER 195
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedLewin 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 . .
[1997] EWHC Admin 312

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 December 2020; Ref: scu.258607

Carden: 1879

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 by:
CitedHoar-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 . .
[2003] EWHC 2660 (Admin)

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 December 2020; Ref: scu.244438

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.
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
Licensing Act 2003 181
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedBradford 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 . .
Times 31-May-00, (2000) COD 338, (2000) 164 JP 485

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 December 2020; Ref: scu.244195

Regina v Baines: 1909

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 by:
CitedRegina 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 . .
[1997] EWHC Admin 851

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 December 2020; Ref: scu.225277

Bodden v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: 1990

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 by:
CitedWard 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. . .
[2005] UKHL 32, Times 09-May-05, [2006] 1 AC 23, [2005] 2 WLR 1114

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 December 2020; Ref: scu.224766

Macrae v Macrae: CA 1949

The question was as to the Magistrates’ jurisdiction under the Acts, which depended upon ordinary residence: ‘Ordinary residence can be changed in a day. A man is ordinarily resident in one place up till a particular day: he then cuts the connection he has with that place – in this case he left his wife, in another case he might have disposed of his house or anyhow left it and made arrangements to make his home somewhere else. Where there are indications that the place to which he moves is the place which he intends to make his home for at any rate an indefinite period, then as from that date in my opinion he is ordinarily resident at the place to which he has gone.’
Somerville LJ
[1949] P 397
Summary Jurisdiction (Separation and Maintenance) Act 1895
Cited by:
AppliedLewis v Lewis FD 1956
A wife returning to live in England after a period living in Australia, resumed her ordinary residence when she began her voyage by sea back to England. . .
[1956] 1 WLR 200
CitedNessa v Chief Adjudication Officer HL 3-Nov-1999
Mrs. Nessa arrived at Heathrow aged 55 having lived all her life in Bangladesh. Her husband, Mr. Mobarak Ali, had lived in the United Kingdom from 1962 until he died in 1975 and when she arrived here, Mrs. Nessa had a right of abode. She hoped to . .
Times 27-Oct-99, Gazette 03-Nov-99, Gazette 08-Dec-99, [1999] UKHL 41, [1999] 4 All ER 677, [1999] 1 WLR 1937

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 December 2020; Ref: scu.200338

Coles v Camborne Justices: QBD 27 Jul 1998

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 by:
CitedRegina v Thames Magistrates’ Court ex parte Genegis Ramadan Admn 5-Oct-1998
. .
[1998] EWHC Admin 922

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.79272

Regina v Reigate Justices, ex parte Counsell: 1984

(1984) 148 JP 193
England and Wales
Cited by:
MentionedSkelton, 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 . .
[2017] EWHC 3118 (Admin)

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.606452

Mercer v Oldham: QBD 1984

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: 07 December 2020; Ref: scu.401966

Regina v Parlby: 1889

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
Public Health Act 1875 91
Cited by:

  • 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, . .
    Times 09-Jun-03, Gazette 10-Jul-03, [2003] EWHC 1197 (Admin), [2003] 3 WLR 1243, [2004] QB 212
  • 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 . .
    Times 23-Nov-05, [2005] EWHC 2473 (Admin)

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 December 2020; Ref: scu.183839

Regina v Sallis: CACD 29 Jan 2003

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: 01 December 2020; Ref: scu.178999

Regina v Newham Juvenile Court ex parte F (A Minor): QBD 1986

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.’
References: [1986] 1 WLR 939, [1986] 3 All ER 17, [1986] Crim LR 557, (1986) 84 Cr App R 81
Judges: Stephen Brown LJ, McCullough J
Statutes: Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 24(1)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • 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 whethe the case should have been comitted to the Crown Court. . .
    (, [1997] EWHC Admin 760)
  • Cited – Jones v South East Surrey Local Justice Area Admn 12-Mar-2010
    jones_sesjaAdmn10
    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 . .
    (, [2010] EWHC 916 (Admin), (2010) 174 JP 342)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.224836

Aldis v Director of Public Prosecutions: CACD 11 Feb 2002

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.
References: Times 06-Mar-2002
Judges: Lord Justice Keene and Mr Justice Goldring
Statutes: Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 100, Magistrates Court Act 1980 25(6), Children and Young Persons Act 1963 29
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.167722

Regina v Abedare Justices ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions: 1990

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.’
References: [1990] 155 JP 324
Judges: Bingham LJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • 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.
    (, [2004] EWHC 2211 (Admin))

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.261304