Blankley v Winstanley And Another: 19 May 1789

A charter granting jurisdiction to borough magistrates over a district not within the borough does not exclude the county justices without express words. And though such charter contain words of reference to former charters in which exclusive jurisdiction is given to the borough justices within the borough, and add that they shall have jurisdiction within the new district in tam amplis modo et forma, and c. yet if there be in the latter charter a saving clause of the rights of the Crown and of all other persons, the borough magistrates have only a concurrent jurisdiction with the county justices. Where the words of a charter are doubtful, they may be explained by long usage (a).

Citations:

[1789] EngR 2471, (1789) 3 TR 279, (1789) 100 ER 574

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.368102

Regina v West London Licensing Justices, ex parte Davis: QBD 16 Mar 1994

A pronouncement by Justices was of no legal effect, having been made ultra vires, and so no certiorari order was necessary or capable of being made to correct it.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Jun-1994, Gazette 30-Mar-1994, Times 16-Mar-1994

Statutes:

Licensing Act 1964 20

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates, Licensing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88289

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.

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ, Mance J

Citations:

Times 28-Jan-1998, [1999] 1 Cr App R 345, [1998] EWHC Admin 41, [1998] 1 WLR 800

Links:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 19 May 2022; 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.

Citations:

Gazette 26-Aug-1998, Times 12-Oct-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 756

Links:

Bailii

Magistrates

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86560

Regina v Ealing Magistrates’ Court ex parte Satnam Sahota: QBD 10 Nov 1997

A delay in appeal against a decision taken in the absence of the accused is not the sole ground to be considered for the refusal of a rehearing.

Citations:

Gazette 26-Nov-1997, Times 09-Dec-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 993

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Appeal Act 1995

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86609

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.

Judges:

Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Clyde Lord Scott of Foscote

Citations:

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

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offences (Custody Time Limits) Regulations 1987 (1987 No 299) 4, Human Rights Act 1998 3

Jurisdiction:

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.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates, Human Rights

Updated: 19 May 2022; 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.

Citations:

Times 06-May-1999, Gazette 08-Apr-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 205

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 16(1)

Magistrates, Costs

Updated: 19 May 2022; 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.

Citations:

Gazette 24-Jun-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 639

Links:

Bailii

Planning, Magistrates

Updated: 19 May 2022; 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.’

Judges:

Saville LJ

Citations:

Times 22-Feb-1996, [1996] 1 WLR 826

Statutes:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 19 May 2022; 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.

Judges:

Schiemann LJ, Poole J

Citations:

Times 20-Feb-2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 582

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

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 . .

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Human Rights, Magistrates, Evidence

Updated: 19 May 2022; 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.’

Judges:

Silber J, Lord Bingham of Cornhill

Citations:

Times 31-May-2000, (2000) COD 338, (2000) 164 JP 485

Statutes:

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 . .
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 . .
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, . .

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. . .
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.
CitedMastercard UK Members Forum Ltd Mastercard International Inc CAT 28-Jul-2006
. .
CitedPerinpanathan, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court and Another CA 4-Feb-2010
The appellant’s daughter had been stopped entering the country with andpound;150,000 in cash. The police sought an order for its forfeiture, suspecting a link with terrorism. The magistrates found no evidence of such, and declined to make the order, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Local Government, Costs, Licensing

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78542

Gage v Wren: 1903

Citations:

[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. . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating, Magistrates

Updated: 18 May 2022; 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.’

Judges:

Mann LJ

Citations:

[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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 18 May 2022; 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.

Judges:

Russell LJ

Citations:

[1988] QB 1, [1987] 2 All ER 668, (1987) 86 Cr App R 1, [1987] Crim LR 572, [1987] 3 WLR 224

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 76 78

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Dhorajiwala CACD 9-Jun-2010
The defendant appealed against her conviction for theft. She had been accused of stealing money over many months from the till at the pharmacy where she worked. She said that a confession in interviews conducted by civilian investigators should not . .
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, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 18 May 2022; 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.

Citations:

[1842] EngR 1005, (1842) 2 QB 520, (1842) 114 ER 204

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates

Updated: 18 May 2022; 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.

Citations:

[1861] EngR 528, (1861) 6 H and N 753, (1861) 158 ER 311

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Magistrates

Updated: 18 May 2022; 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.

Citations:

[1913] 1 KB 561

Statutes:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Magistrates

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.272549

Regina v Ayu: CCA 1959

It is not open to the justices to attach specific conditions to a binding-over order.

Citations:

[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, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.261941

Doble v David Grieg Ltd: 1972

Judges:

Forbes J

Citations:

[1972] All ER 195

Jurisdiction:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.258607

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.

Citations:

(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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.261813

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.

Judges:

Richards LJ, Toulson J

Citations:

Times 11-Jul-2006

Statutes:

Licensing Act 2003 181

Jurisdiction:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Costs, Licensing

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.244195

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’.

Judges:

Cockburn CJ

Citations:

(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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.244438

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.’

Judges:

Bigham J

Citations:

[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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 17 May 2022; 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.

Citations:

[1990] 2 QB 397, [1990] 2 WLR 76, (1989) 154 JP 217, [1989] 3 All ER 833

Jurisdiction:

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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.224766

Regina v Reigate Justices, ex parte Counsell: 1984

Citations:

(1984) 148 JP 193

Jurisdiction:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.606452

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.

Citations:

Times 27-Jul-1998

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts Act 1980 142(1)

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Thames Magistrates’ Court ex parte Genegis Ramadan Admn 5-Oct-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.79272

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.’

Citations:

[1984] Crim LR 232

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates, Police, Costs

Updated: 11 May 2022; 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 . .’

Citations:

(1889) 22 QBD 520

Statutes:

Public Health Act 1875 91

Cited by:

Not bindingHounslow 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, . .
CitedVella v London Borough of Lambeth Admn 14-Nov-2005
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision to serve an abatement notice in respect of premises where the normal noise incidents of living were heard in neighbouring flats, which notices were to be abated by noise insulation.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities, Nuisance, Magistrates

Updated: 08 May 2022; 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.

Judges:

Holland, Hallett JJ

Citations:

Times 07-Feb-2003

Statutes:

Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.178999

Regina v Highgate Justices ex parte Petrou: QBD 1954

The Appellant was the owner of premises which she let to another party for use as a club. The other party was charged with 10 offences relating to the supply of liquor at the premises and the Appellant was joined to show cause why the club should not be struck off the register. After the hearing, the justices were informed that the costs of the prosecution amounted to 21 guineas. They convicted the manager, fined him andpound;10 and ordered him to pay 20 guineas costs, and also ordered the appellant to pay andpound;100 costs and they ordered the club to be struck off the register.
Held: The appeal by way of motion for certiorari suceeded. Costs are to be awarded as compensation, not as punishment. The order against the Appellant was a penalty in the guise of costs.
Lord Goddard CJ said: ‘I regret that any bench of justices could have acted as these justices did. They were not imposing costs on the applicant; they were imposing a penalty on her when she had not been convicted of any offence, but had only come before the court to show cause why the premises should not be struck off the register. Under the guise of making an order for costs, the justices inflicted a penalty of andpound;100, which could only have been intended as a penalty. Since, by their order against [the manager], they had satisfied the costs of the prosecution apart from one guinea certiorari will go…’

Judges:

Lord Goddard CJ

Citations:

[1954] 1 All ER 406, [1954] 1 WLR 485

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedPrasannan v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Admn 25-Feb-2010
The appellant challenged an order to pay costs summarily assessed at andpound;20,000.
Held: The order was not a penalty and was within the discretion of the district judge. The appeal failed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Costs

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.401963

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.’

Judges:

Bingham LJ

Citations:

[1990] 155 JP 324

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedW, Regina (on the Application of) v Camberwell Youth Court and Another Admn 10-Sep-2004
The defendant sought a Judicial review of the magistrates’ decision to adjourn case at request of prosecutor. The prosecutor had failed to comply with its disclosure obligations, and de-warned its witnesses before the date fixed for trial.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.261304

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.’

Judges:

Stephen Brown LJ, McCullough J

Citations:

[1986] 1 WLR 939, [1986] 3 All ER 17, [1986] Crim LR 557, (1986) 84 Cr App R 81

Statutes:

Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 24(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Stamford Magistrates ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 31-Jul-1997
A challenge was made as to whether the magistrates had jurisdiction in an allegation of burglary, or whether the case should have been committed to the Crown Court. . .
CitedJones v South East Surrey Local Justice Area Admn 12-Mar-2010
The defendant sought judicial review of a decision of the magistrates to adjourn a case where, on the day before, a differently constitued bench had refused an adjournment requested by the prosecution. On the first occasion the prosecutor had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 30 April 2022; 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.

Judges:

Lord Justice Keene and Mr Justice Goldring

Citations:

Times 06-Mar-2002

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

Criminal Sentencing, Magistrates

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.167722

Regina v Barnet Justices ex parte Ribbans: Admn 18 Jun 1997

The applicant was an elderly illiterate lady. The magistrates had found that she had culpably neglected to pay her community charge. A suspended sentence of imprisonment was first imposed, and then effected in her absence. Held the Magistrates were under an obligation to enquire as to the adequacy of the service by recorded delivery. Costs were ordered against the magistrates despite their having only filed affidavit evidence.

Judges:

Mr Justice Laws

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 566

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Erewash Borough Council and Ilkestone Justices ex parte Smedberg and Smedberg 1994
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Taxes – Other, Magistrates, Costs

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.137511

Regina v Aylesbury Justices ex parte Kitching and GBS Estates Limited: Admn 9 May 1997

The defendant had been convicted of felling trees without a licence. He claimed to have received assurances from the Forestry Commission that he would not be prosecuted. He said the prosecution was an abuse of process. The magistrates held that their jurisdiction on abuse was limited to the fairness of the procedures within the court.

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 452

Statutes:

Forestry Act 1967

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Licensing, Magistrates

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.137397

Da Prato and Others v Partick Magistrates: HL 11 Mar 1907

Where magistrates of a burgh were by statute authorised to make bye-laws in regard to the opening and closing of a certain class of shop, to wit, ice-cream and aerated water shops, ‘the hours for business not being more restricted than fifteen hours daily,’ held that a duly confirmed bye-law whereby keeping open save between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. was prohibited was not ultra vires or unreasonable, and that an action brought to reduce the bye-law on averments to the effect that little or no business being in practice possible in such shops before 9 a.m., by fixing the opening hour at 7 a.m. fifteen hours ‘for business’ were not given, was irrelevant.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor ( Loreburn), Lord Ashbourne, Lord Macnaghten, Lord James of Hereford, Lord Robertson, Lord Atkinson, and Lord Collins

Citations:

[1907] UKHL 366, 44 SLR 366

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.622281

Suleman, Regina (on The Application of) v Leeds District Magistrates Court: Admn 1 Dec 2017

Challenge, by way of a claim for judicial review, by the Claimant against the refusal of the District Judge in the Leeds District Magistrates’ Court to accede to applications made by the claimant that summonses be issued against his ex-wife. The summonses sought, related in part to alleged offences of perjury relating to evidence given by the Claimant’s wife in proceedings brought against the Claimant for harassment in which, the Claimant tells me, he was found not guilty.

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 3656 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619958

Brown v Nicholson: 17 Nov 1858

A borough may be a ‘town corporate’ within the licensing act, 9 G 4, c. 61, s. 1, though it has no separate court of Quarter Sessions. – A licence was granted by the justices of the borough of M, – a place having a separate commission of the peace, but no separate court of Quarter Sessions, at a licensing meeting held on the 7th of September, which had been duly appointed by them as they had always been accustomed to do : Held, that the licence so granted was valid, notwithstanding that the justices for the county (who had concurrent jurisdiction in M.) had previously appointed a licensing-meeting for the 8th.

Citations:

[1858] EngR 1141, (1858) 5 CB NS 468, (1858) 144 ER 190

Links:

Commonlii

Magistrates

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.289612

Yearly v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 21 Mar 1997

Having closed their case, the prosecution applied for and were granted opportunity to adduce evidence in the form of certificates under section 69.
Held: The court had a discretion to allow further evidence. The magistrates had correctly considered the applicable law, and applied the discretion given to them properly.

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 308

Statutes:

Computer Misuse Act 1990 1(1), Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 69

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Shephard HL 16-Dec-1992
The defendant had been convicted of theft from a supermarket. The evidence was that the till rolls did not include the goods the subject of the charge. She argued that it should not have been admitted as evidence, without supporting evidence that . .
CitedRegina v Francis CACD 1990
The prosecution had omitted to bring evidence that the person standing at No.20 on an identification parade was the appellant. The defence complained that the prosecutor had been allowed to re-open his case.
Held: ‘The discretion of the judge . .
CitedRegina v Vincent Munnery CACD 1992
On a charge of burglary, the prosecution had not brought evidence that the appellant was one of those who carried cartons out of Liberty’s department store. The court allowed the prosecutor to re-open his case to present that evidence.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Magistrates

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.137253

Sutton London Borough Council v Davis (Number 2): FD 8 Jul 1994

The local authority had refused to register a childminder, who successfully appealed to the magistrates, who awarded costs in her favour. The local authority appealed against the costs order. In doing so the authority urged the court to apply, by analogy, the principle that costs are not usually ordered in child cases.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The local authority had erred in concluding that the respondent was not fit to mind children, but their stance in relation to Mrs Davis was neither reprehensible nor unreasonable.
In a large Magistrates Court family case the LAB was to be allowed to assess costs before a decision was to be made by the Justices. Justices may award costs in an adversarial children matter, and await Legal Aid Board’s assessment on the amount. It was not the normal practice to award costs in child care cases.
Wilson J said: ‘Where the debate surrounds the future of a child, the proceedings are partly inquisitorial and the aspiration is that in their outcome the child is the winner and indeed the only winner. The court does not wish the spectre of an order for costs to discourage those with a proper interest in the child from participating in the debate. Nor does it wish to reduce the chance of their co-operation around the future life of the child by casting one as the successful party entitled to his costs and another as the unsuccessful party obliged to pay them. The proposition applies in its fullest form to proceedings between parents and other relations; but it also applies to proceedings to which a local authority are a party. Thus, even when a local authority’s application for a care order is dismissed, it is unusual to order them to pay the costs of the other parties. But the proposition is not applied where, for example, the conduct of a party has been reprehensible or the party’s stance has been beyond the band of what is reasonable: Havering London Borough Council v S [1986] 1 FLR 489 and Gojkovic v Gojkovic [1992] Fam 40, 60C-D.’
and ‘In care proceedings the local authority and all other parties come into court in order to assist it in choosing the programme for the child’s future which will best serve his or her welfare. In the case of Mrs Davis the local authority made an incorrect decision as to her fitness. She had a right to be registered and they infringed it. Mrs Davis afforded them the opportunity to review their decision by lodging an objection pursuant to section 77(3) of the Children Act 1989. But they resolved that the decision should stand. In order to establish her right to be registered, Mrs Davis had to appeal to the magistrates’ court. The proceedings were adversarial and the local authority lost the argument. Such were the circumstances for application of the principle that costs should follow the event. Far from being satisfied that the justices were plainly wrong to decide that the local authority should pay the costs of Mrs Davis, I consider that they were right.’

Judges:

Wilson J

Citations:

Independent 08-Jul-1994, Gazette 31-Aug-1994, [1994] 1 WLR 1317

Citing:

See AlsoSutton London Borough Council v Davis FD 17-Mar-1994
Local Authority need not be inflexible in assessing fitness of child minder – smacking. A child minder refusing to sign Local Authority’s no-smack undertaking can still be registered. . .

Cited by:

CitedCorner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 1-Mar-2005
The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the . .
See AlsoSutton London Borough Council v Davis FD 17-Mar-1994
Local Authority need not be inflexible in assessing fitness of child minder – smacking. A child minder refusing to sign Local Authority’s no-smack undertaking can still be registered. . .
CitedIn re T (Children) SC 25-Jul-2012
The local authority had commenced care proceedings, alleging abuse. After lengthy proceedings, of seven men and two grandparents, all but one were exonerated. The grandparents had not been entitled to legal aid, and had had to mortgage their house . .
CitedIn Re M (A Minor) (Local Authority’s Costs) FD 9-Jan-1995
The local authority applied for permission to refuse contact between two children and their parents. The magistrates refused the application and ordered the local authority to pay the father’s costs. The authority appealed.
Held: The appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Magistrates

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.89634

Regina v Teesside Magistrates’ Court ex parte Ellison: QBD 20 Feb 2001

The power and duty to deal with a defendant brought before the magistrates on an accusation of breach of the terms of his bail lay with the magistrates, and even where the bail had been set by the crown court and he was due to appear in the Crown Court within a few days, they had to deal with the matter on the defendant being brought before them. They have no power to commit the defendant to the Crown Court for that court to deal with him.

Citations:

Times 20-Feb-2001

Statutes:

Bail Act 1976 7(5)

Magistrates

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88688

Regina v North East Essex Justices, ex parte Lloyd: QBD 7 Dec 2000

The magistrates had full power to commit a defendant to the Crown Court for sentence where they wanted to fine him, but considered that their powers to impose a fine were too limited. When doing so, they should invite representation on the proposal, and convey their views to the Crown Court.

Citations:

Gazette 07-Dec-2000

Magistrates, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88571

Regina v Neath and Port Talbot Justices, ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 2 Mar 2000

The magistrates had refused an adjournment of a trial after the non-attendance of the complainant. The prosecution offered no evidence, and the charge was dismissed. The prosecutor applied for judicial review, but the case came on only 16 months afterwards. The court held that several factors were to be considered, including the seriousness of the charge, the evidence and effect of any delay upon it, the defendant’s contribution if any to the delay, and any justifiable feeling of aggrievement for the complainant.

Citations:

Times 15-Mar-2000, Gazette 02-Mar-2000

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88565

Regina v Colchester Justices Ex Parte Abbott: QBD 13 Mar 2001

When calculating the value of damage for the purpose of deciding whether an allegation of criminal damage could be referred to the Crown Court, the damage was the replacement value and not the consequential losses. An activist was accused of damaging genetically engineered crops. The replacement value was andpound;750, but the consequential losses amounted to over andpound;5000. It was triable only at the Magistrates Court.

Citations:

Times 13-Mar-2001, Gazette 12-Apr-2001

Statutes:

Criminal Damage Act 1971, Magistrates Courts Act 1980 22

Magistrates, Crime

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88416

Regina v Croydon Justices, ex parte W H Smith Ltd: QBD 22 Nov 2000

The power to institute proceedings for a breach of the Act lay in the inspector, and he could not delegate it. The Act was explicit in its requirements as to who could issue proceedings. The informations were not laid when the inspector requested a local authority solicitor to issue them, and there was nothing to justify any inference of a power to delegate.

Citations:

Gazette 30-Nov-2000, Times 22-Nov-2000

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 38

Health and Safety, Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88431

Regina v Pydar Justices Ex Parte Foster: QBD 23 May 1995

There was a case to answer on an OPL charge despite the computer readout not being handed to Justices. It was in evidence. Evidence referred to but not challenged by the defendant can be relied upon by Justices in making their decision. The court commented on a suggestion that a defending advocate was entitled to ‘keep his powder dry’: ‘Mr Burkett [who was the applicant] submitted that the solicitor concerned was entitled to sit quiet and not alert the justices to the error the defendant claims existed on the form, but make a submission about it to them later at a time of his choosing. I profoundly disagree with this thoroughly bad submission. Without any doubt whatsoever, it is the duty of a defending advocate properly to lay the ground for a submission, either by cross-examination or, if appropriate, by calling evidence.’

Judges:

Curtis J

Citations:

Times 23-May-1995, Ind Summary 12-Jun-1995, [1995] 160 JP 87

Cited by:

CitedChristopher James Jolly v Director of Public Prosections Admn 31-Mar-2000
At trial in the magistrates court, the prosecution had failed to bring evidence that the computer used to analyse the defendant’s breath alcohol was in proper working condition. The defendant submitted no case to answer, and the magistrates allowed . .
CitedAntonio Leeson v Haringey Justices and Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 26-Jul-1999
The prosecutor on a charge of driving with excess alcohol had failed to adduce evidence as to the calibration of the intoximeter. The magistrates allowed him to re-open his case. The defendant appealed.
Held: The appeal was dismissed: ‘If the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.87578

Regina v Reading Justices ex parte Berkshire County Council: QBD 5 May 1995

Disclosure by third parties in criminal proceedings was not affected by other new rule. Simon Brown LJ summarised the tests for materiality for requiring production of dicuments from third parties by magistrates: ‘The central principles . . . are as follows:
(i) to be material evidence documents must be not only relevant to the issues arising in the criminal proceedings, but also documents admissible as such in evidence;
(ii) documents which are desired merely for the purpose of possible cross-examination are not admissible in evidence and, thus, are not material for the purposes of section 97;
(iii) whoever seeks production of documents must satisfy the Justices with some material that the documents are ‘likely to be material’ in the sense indicated, likelihood for this purpose involving a real possibility, although not necessarily a probability;
(iv) it is not sufficient that the applicant merely wants to find out whether or not the third party has such material documents. This procedure must not be used as a disguised attempt to obtain discovery.’

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ

Citations:

Times 05-May-1995, [1996] Cr App R 239

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts Act 1980 97

Cited by:

CitedWasted Costs Order (No 5 of 1997) CACD 2-Sep-1999
Witness orders for the production of documents in the speculative hope that they might contain matters of assistance should be discouraged, and particularly so in respect of documents held by social services departments. This should now be well . .
CitedCunliffe, Regina (on the Application of) v West London Magistrates’ Court Admn 6-Jul-2006
The claimant was an employee of the company manufacturing alcohol measuring devices. He sought judicial review of decisions by magistrates to require him to attend court to give evidence which would require him to breach obligations of confidence he . .
CitedRegina v Stone CACD 19-Jul-2000
The defendant appealed against a refusal of a stay of the proceedings as an abuse, and the decision to admit certaiin evidence, and a refusal to issue a witness summons against an alleged informant. The defendant had been subject to an undercover . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.87606

Regina v Newport Justices Ex Parte Carey; Regina v Gwent Magistrates Court, ex parte Carey: QBD 16 Jul 1996

The defendant had written to the court to request an adjournment. The case proceeded in his absence.
Held: Justices have a broad discretion on the re-opening case after a conviction had been entered in the Defendant’s absence. The defendant retained a right of appeal under s108. The absence was the defendant’s entire responsibility. The court had shown respect for the convenience of witnesses, and a desire to show that the defendant had tested the limits of the court’s patience.

Judges:

Henry LJ

Citations:

Times 16-Jul-1996, (1996) 160 JP 613

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts Act 1980 142

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.87435

Regina v Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate Ex Parte Chaudhry: QBD 9 Jul 1993

The Crown Prosecution Service was in the process of pursuing a prosecution when the private prosecutor sought to bring a prosecution for a serious offence arising out of the same facts. There would be potentially concurrent prosecutions.
Held: Magistrates were not wrong to disallow a private prosecution in addition to crown prosecution. A private prosecutor does not have the unfettered right to a trial. Kennedy LJ said that on the question of the relevant considerations, when deciding whether to issue a summons in such a case: ‘The magistrate should have regard to all of the relevant circumstances of which he is aware . . . such as whether the incident giving rise to the information which he is considering has already been investigated by a responsible prosecuting authority which is pursuing what it considers to be the appropriate charges against the same proposed defendant.’

Judges:

Kennedy LJ, Bell J

Citations:

Independent 09-Jul-1993, Times 14-Sep-1993, [1994] QB 340

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985 6(1)

Cited by:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Crime, Magistrates

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.87326

Regina v Newcastle Upon Tyne Justices ex parte Devine: QBD 20 May 1998

Justices who had issued a commitment warrant in the absence of the defendant, and without good reason for believing that the summons he had failed to respond to, had been served, were quite wrong, and because of earlier similar cases it was proper to order them to pay the costs of the action.

Citations:

Times 07-May-1998, Gazette 20-May-1998

Statutes:

Community Charge (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989 438

Magistrates

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.87426

Regina v Lincoln Magistrates Court ex parte Wickes Building Supplies Ltd: QBD 6 Aug 1993

Domestic legislation remains in force pending an answer from the European Court. It was not an abuse to prepare many charges against a Defendant pending that decision.

Citations:

Ind Summary 16-Aug-1993, Times 06-Aug-1993

Statutes:

Shops Act 1950 47

Magistrates, Consumer

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.87185

Regina v Ipswich Justices Ex Parte Best: QBD 23 Feb 1993

The magistrates had no power under the new Act to deal with an offender for a breach of a probation order made under the old regime, unless he or the supervising officer so requested. The earlier provision were now repealed.

Citations:

Times 23-Feb-1993

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1991 Sch13

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86966

Regina v Horseferry Road Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate Ex Parte K: QBD 22 Feb 1996

It is the entry of a not guilty plea which actually begins the trial process, not the trial itself. A magistrate may commit for trial even after a not guilty plea has been entered but before the trial begins.

Citations:

Times 22-Feb-1996, Gazette 20-Mar-1996

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts Act 1980 25(2)

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86892

Regina v Clerk to Liverpool Magistrates’ Court Ex Parte McCormick; Regina v Same; Ex Parte Larkin: QBD 12 Jan 2001

For the purposes of a defendant reclaiming his costs, those costs were incurred where there was a contractual obligation on him to pay, and it was wrong for the court first to insist that he pay them, and then re-imburse him. It was not dependent upon issues about the likelihood of him ever paying. They might not be repayable where no burden was to be placed on the defendant to pay at all. The regulations requiring the payment of costs were inconsistent with the parent Act, and were ultra vires and void.

Citations:

Times 12-Jan-2001

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 16(6), Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 (1986 No 1335), Costs in Criminal Cases (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1999 (1999 No 2096)

Magistrates, Costs, Criminal Practice

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86399

Regina v Bingley Magistrates Court Ex Parte Morrow: QBD 28 Apr 1994

A private prosecution was started by summons.
Held: The court accepted that justices were entitled to exercise their discretion not to issue one, a comforting re-assurance that the magistrates were not obliged to ‘rubber stamp’ the process by which a prosecution might be started. They had been right not to issue a murder summons after a civil court declaration.

Citations:

Times 28-Apr-1994

Cited by:

CitedLevey, Regina v CACD 27-Jul-2006
The defendant appealed against his conviction of manslaughter of his baby son. He said that a family court had previously investigated the same allegations and had explicitly found itself unable to say which of himself and the mother were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86132

Regina (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Acton Youth Court: QBD 21 Jun 2001

It was not normally necessary for magistrates to excuse themselves from further involvement in a case after making preliminary rulings on a request for public immunity certificates. The purpose of that ex parte hearing was to ensure the protection of the defendant. Indeed knowing of that original application might allow the defendant greater protection. The fact that magistrates were judges both of the law and of the facts in a case did not sufficiently distinguish them from other decision makers, and the approval of such an approach under the Act should be extended to magistrates also.

Judges:

Woolf LJ

Citations:

Times 21-Jun-2001, Gazette 21-Jun-2001, [2001] 1 WLR 1828, [2001] EWHC Admin 402

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998

Citing:

CitedRegina v Smith (Joe) CACD 20-Dec-2000
The defendant was arrested for burglary and a non-intimate sample taken without his consent. The DNA profile matched blood at the scene of the burglary, and this match was the bedrock of the prosecution case. Before the trial, prosecuting counsel . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina v H; Regina v C CACD 16-Oct-2003
The defendants were charged with serious drugs offences. The prosecutor had applied for public interest immunity certificates. The judge had required the appointment of independent counsel. The prosecutor appealed.
Held: The same district . .
CitedRegina v H; Regina v C HL 5-Feb-2004
Use of Special Counsel as Last Resort Only
The accused faced charges of conspiring to supply Class A drugs. The prosecution had sought public interest immunity certificates. Special counsel had been appointed by the court to represent the defendants’ interests at the applications.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85962

Regina v Sheffield City Justices, Ex Parte Foster: QBD 2 Nov 1999

The power of a magistrate to make a subsequent order correcting an earlier one was wide. The section gave wide powers, including the power to revoke an order for an overnight detention. Magistrates should not forget that the purpose of the system for collection of fines, was to collect the fine, and not further to punish the offender.

Citations:

Times 02-Nov-1999

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts Act 1980 142

Magistrates

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85555

Regina v Haringey Youth Court, Ex Parte A: QBD 30 May 2000

Where a youth court was considering the imposition of a detention and training order on a young offender under the Act, the court should always, before retiring state this possibility in open court so that the parties can ascertain the length of time if any spent already spent in custody so that proper allowance could be made when fixing the sentence.

Citations:

Times 30-May-2000

Statutes:

Crime and Disorder Act 1998 73

Magistrates, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85296

Regina v Inner London Crown Court, Ex Parte Provis: QBD 11 Jul 2000

Where a party intended to object to the grant of a license it was necessary for them to give appropriate notice of that intention before appearing at court to make it. Police objections had been raised only on the date of the application for grant of the licence. Such behaviour could only give rise to expensive adjournments. Notice should be given both to the clerk to the justices and to the party applying.

Citations:

Times 11-Jul-2000

Licensing, Magistrates

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85327

Practice Direction (Justices Clerk to Couty): QBD 11 Oct 2000

The direction set out in detail the duties of justices’ clerks and legal advisers to the magistrates and the court, in respect of the application of the Act, and generally by restating duties to provide legal advice and assistance with appropriate procedures for allowing representations by those appearing before the court, and also restating and clarifying the limits of a justices’ clerk’s advice on issues of fact and evidence.

Citations:

Times 11-Oct-2000

Magistrates, Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84896

Practice Direction (Magistrates’ Court: Contempt): QBD 11 Jun 2001

Detailed guidance was given by the court as to the way in which magistrates should deal with persons refusing to give evidence, or otherwise behaving in a way which might be a contempt of court. They should cease to use their power to bind a defendant over. The magistrates should consider detention of the person until he could be dealt with without disrupting the court, but in any event progress should be made within the day. He must be offered legal aid and representation. In the event of a not guilty plea different magistrates should hear the case. The sentence should allow for time spent in custody, and be no more than was necessary.

Citations:

Times 11-Jun-2001

Magistrates, Contempt of Court

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84897

Mooney v Cardiff Justices: QBD 3 Nov 1999

Where a prosecution was discontinued and the defendant applied for his costs, the court should need to hear oral evidence before deciding whether his actions had brought the complaint upon himself. It was proper to hear and rely upon prosecution material, but should look for some independent element supporting an allegation.

Citations:

Gazette 03-Nov-1999, Times 17-Nov-1999

Criminal Practice, Magistrates, Costs

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83814

Jolley v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 5 May 2000

In a trial on a charge of driving with excess alcohol, the prosecutor failed to bring evidence that the computer involved had been working correctly. This was pointed out by the defendant at the close of his case, and the magistrate allowed the prosecutor to bring that evidence. The appeal failed. The court now has a clear general discretion to admit evidence after a case has been closed but before retiring. When using that discretion the justices must test what prejudice might be caused, but this is no longer an exceptional cases only discretion.

Citations:

Gazette 05-May-2000

Criminal Evidence, Road Traffic, Magistrates

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.82573

Evans (Darren Michael) v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 9 Jul 2001

When stating a case for the High Court, justices may not put on the statement a gloss additional to the reasons given in their own decision, and not should they change the reasons for the decision. In announcing their verdict, they said they had found the complainant’s evidence more credible, and in doing so implied that they had not applied the test of being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. When stating their case, the magistrates had changed those reasons, or at best put a gloss on them, and that was unacceptable.

Citations:

Times 09-Jul-2001

Magistrates

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80385

Daly, Regina (on The Application of) v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis and Another: Admn 7 Mar 2018

Challenge to grant of search warrant against the applicant’s premises. A boiler had been left on full in order to dry the house out after works of renovation. Heat seeking imagery had led to a suspicion that the property was being used for the growth of cannabis by hydroponics.
Held: The claim failed: ‘ while material mistake of fact leading to unfairness can be available as a ground of judicial review in some circumstances, whether it is in fact available will depend upon the nature of the case before the court.’ In the circumstances, the case had been based upon misconceptions as to the plice actions, and no malice could be shown.

Judges:

Sir Brian Leveson P QBD, Males J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 438 (Admin), [2018] WLR(D) 146

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Police, Magistrates

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605884

Director of Public Prosecutions, Regina (on The Application of) v Birmingham Magistrates’ Court: Admn 7 Dec 2017

Appeal from refusal of Magistrates to allow adjournment and to state a case. The complainant and witness had been unable to attend after an overnight multiple bereavement.

Judges:

Treacy LJ, Seeney J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 3444 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.602582