Tag: Magistrates

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:

Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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

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:

Cited – Christopher 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 . .
Cited – Antonio 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:

Cited – Wasted 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 . .
Cited – Cunliffe, 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 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:

Cited – Levey, 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:

Cited – Regina 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:

Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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

Superior Import / Export Ltd and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs and Another: Admn 11 Dec 2017

Challenge by the Claimants to the lawfulness of the decision by a Justice of the Peace sitting Birmingham Magistrates’ Court to grant 3 search warrants under s. 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in relation to premises owned or occupied by them.

Judges:

Gross LJ, Carr J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 3172 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management, Magistrates

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601506

Mishra v Colchester Magistrates’ Court: Admn 14 Nov 2017

The court was asked whether magistrates’ courts have a discretion to extend the time to state a case after the expiration of the 21 days specified in section 111(2) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (the 1980 Act) as the time within which an application for a case to be stated for the opinion of the High Court must be made.

Judges:

Sharp LJ, Dove J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 2869 (Admin), [2017] WLR(D) 759

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 111(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.599414

Regina v Chelmsford Justices, Ex Parte Lloyd: QBD 5 Dec 2000

It was proper for magistrates to commit a defendant to the Crown Court for sentence where they believed that the appropriate sentence was a fine, but the level of fine they thought appropriate would be outside their powers, and only the Crown Court would have that power. The section did not limit the power to situations involving imprisonment. It would be helpful, if the justices considered this to make their views known to the defendant and his advocate to allow representations to be made, and in due course to make the basis of committal known to the Crown Court.

Citations:

Times 05-Dec-2000

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts Act 1980 38

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, Magistrates

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.86337

K (REMO – Power of Magistrates to Issue Bench Warrant): FC 12 May 2017

Whether magistrates sitting in the Family Court have the power to issue a warrant for the arrest of an alleged maintenance debtor who has failed to obey an order to attend for questioning as to his means.
Held: They did, though in this case personal service of the order had not yet been achieved and the matter was remitted.

Judges:

Peter Jackson J

Citations:

[2017] EWFC 27, [2017] WLR(D) 329

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 31E

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Family, Magistrates

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.584197

Woodward and Others, Regina v: Admn 27 Apr 2017

Appeal by the Crown by way of case stated against a decision of Wakefield Magistrates’ Court dismiss the prosecution of the five Respondents for offences under section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (‘the 2006 Act’) on the basis that the proceedings were brought out of time.

Judges:

Hiickinbottom LJ, Kerr J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1008 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.582155

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.’

Judges:

Somerville LJ

Citations:

[1949] P 397

Statutes:

Summary Jurisdiction (Separation and Maintenance) Act 1895

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Applied – Lewis 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. . .
Cited – Nessa 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.200338

Jones, Regina (on The Application of) v Liverpool and Knowsley Magistrates’ Court: Admn 8 Dec 2016

Challenge to the decision of the respondents to proceed with the claimant’s trial without him having been granted legal aid, and in his absence.

Judges:

Treacy LJ, Wilkie J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 3520 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Aid, Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573915

Director of Public Prosecutions v Bird: Admn 29 Oct 2015

Appeal by the prosecution by way of case stated in respect of a decision at the Bristol Magistrates’ Court refusing to allow the prosecution to proceed on a charge of criminal damage which another bench of magistrates, lay justices, had already dismissed.

Beatson LJ, Wilkie J
[2015] EWHC 4077 (Admin), [2016] 4 WLR 82
Bailii

Magistrates

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564419

Hemming Mp v Birmingham City Council: Admn 11 Mar 2015

The claimant, a local MP had brought proceedigs in the magistrates court against the authority in respect of its alleged failure to control litter. He appealed by case stated against an order that he pay the authority’s costs of defending the action, amd now challenged the cae as stated saying that it was inadeuate.
Held: The challenge failed.

[2015] EWHC 1472 (Admin)
Bailii

Magistrates, Costs

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550013

Letherbarrow v Warwickshire County Council: Admn 15 Dec 2014

This is an appeal by way of case stated from a decision of the Warwickshire Justices to convict the appellant on a number of counts of contraventions of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It is argued that the prosecution had failed to comply with the time limits laid down by section 31(1) of that Act.

Bean LJ, Hickinbottom J
[2014] EWHC 4820 (Admin)
Bailii
Animal Welfare Act 2006 31(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Riley and Others v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 18-Oct-2016
The defendants appealed by case stated from convictions under the 2006 Act arising from the treatment of cows including at a slaughterhouse. Arguments were put that the prosecution was time barred.
Held: The court recognsed the limited role of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547573

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:
Cited – Glenn and Co (Essex) Ltd), Regina (on The Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs Admn 18-Jun-2010
The company objected to the search of its offices and removal by the defendant of its computers, the officers having entered without any warrant purporting to use powers under the 1989 Act.
Held: The request for judicial review failed. The . .
Cited – Burgin 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 . .
Cited – Anand, 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 . .
Cited – Hoque 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 . .
Cited – Van 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:
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Clarke, 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:
Cited – Westminster 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:
Cited – Regina 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:
Cited – Crann 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:
Cited – In 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:
Cited – Gough 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 . .
Cited – In 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 . .
Cited – Re 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 . .
Distinguished – Regina (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 . .
Cited – Regina (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 . .
Cited – Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
Cited – Campbell 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 . .
Cited – W, 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 . .
Cited – AN, 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 . .
Cited – Fiona 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 . .
Cited – In 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 . .
Cited – Langley 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 . .
Cited – In 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:
Cited – Kerr 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Terra 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 . .
Cited – Morgans 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 . .
Cited – Morgans 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 . .
Cited – Burwell 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:
Applied – Browning 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 . .
Cited – Virgin 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 from – Farley 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 . .
Cited – Farley 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 Instance – Farley 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 . .
Cited – Secretary 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. . .
Cited – Anisminic 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 . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Social Security and Another v Harmon and Another CA 5-Jun-1998
. .

Cited by:
Cited – A, 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 . .
Cited – Child 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:
Cited – Marshall 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:
Cited – Regina (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:
Cited – Johnson 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:
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – London Borough of Newham, Regina (on the Application of) v Stratford Magistrates’ Court Admn 12-Oct-2004
. .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Roberts 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Rex 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:
Approved – Regina v Bros 1902
A magistrate should consider, before issuing a summons, whether it appears to be vexatious. . .
Cited – Regina 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:
Cited – Regina 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: . .
Cited – Augusto 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 . .
Cited – Jones 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Charlson, Regina (on the Application of) v Guildford Magistrates’ Court and others Admn 11-Sep-2006
The CPS had discontinued a prosecution. The magistrates were then asked to issue a summons for a private prosecution. The private prosecutor appealed against the refusal to issue the summons. A second summons was requested from a different . .
Approved – Green, Regina (on the Application of) v The City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court, Thoday, Thompson Admn 5-Dec-2007
The claimant appealed from the refusal by the magistrate to issue summonses for the prosecution for blashemous libel of the Director General of the BBC and the producers of a show entitled ‘Jerry Springer – The Opera.’
Held: The gist of the . .
Cited – Percy, 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 . .
Cited – Scopelight 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 . .
Cited – Browning 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 . .
Cited – Ball 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:
Cited – Pattison 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 from – Haralambous v St Albans Crown Court and Another Admn 22-Apr-2016
This judicial review raised for express decision whether a person whose premises have been searched and whose property seized under a search warrant must have enough information grounding the warrant to judge its lawfulness and the retention of the . .
Cited – Carnduff 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 . .
Cited – Al Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others SC 13-Jul-2011
The claimant pursued a civil claim for damages, alleging complicity of the respondent in his torture whilst in the custody of foreign powers. The respondent sought that certain materials be available to the court alone and not to the claimant or the . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Energy 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. . .
Cited – Gittins 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 . .
Cited – Commissioner 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 . .
Cited – British Sky Broadcasting Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 12-Mar-2014
The court was asked as to the powers of Magistrates hearing an application for a search warrant to receive excluded or special procedure material which had not been disclosed to the respondent. The court had overturned an order made by the district . .
Cited – Golfrate 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 . .
Cited – The 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 . .
Cited – Entick 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Conway 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 . .
Cited – Leander 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 . .
Cited – Michalak 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Esbester 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 . .
Cited – Bank 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 . .
Cited – Attorney 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 . .
Cited – Home 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 . .
Cited – Kadi 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 – . .
Cited – Regina v Davis HL 18-Jun-2008
The defendant had been tried for the murder of two men by shooting them at a party. He was identified as the murderer by three witnesses who had been permitted to give evidence anonymously, from behind screens, because they had refused, out of fear, . .
Cited – Kennedy 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 . .
Cited – Secretary 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 . .
Cited – Stanford 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:
Cited – The 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, . .
Cited – The 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. . .
Cited – The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) v Concordia International Rx (UK) Ltd ChD 12-Dec-2018
Challenge to search warrants issued under the 1998 Act. . .
Cited – The Competition and Markets Authority v Concordia International Rx (UK) Ltd ChD 16-Jan-2019
Application to vary search warrant.
Held: Refused. . .
Cited – Belhaj 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

Regina v West Sussex Quarter Sessions, ex parte Albert and Maud Johnson Trust: CA 1973

References: [1973] CLY 2097, [1973] 3 All ER 289
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Al-Mehdawi v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 23-Nov-1989
    The applicant, a student had overstayed his leave. Through his solicitor’s negligence, he lost his appeal against deportation. He sought judicial review of that decision.
    Held: Judgment obtained in a party’s absence due entirely to the fault . .
    ([1989] 3 WLR 1294, [1989] 3 All ER 843, [1990] 1 AC 876, , [1989] UKHL 7)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.193435

Brown v Nicholson; 17 Nov 1858

References: [1858] EngR 1141, (1858) 5 CB NS 468, (1858) 144 ER 190
Links: Commonlii
Ratio: 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 hold 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 tbe justices for the county (who had concurrerit jurisdiction in M.) had previously appointed a licensing-meeting for the 8th.

Last Update: 10-Aug-16
Ref: 289612

45 Ass Pl 3; 3 Jan 1220

References: [1220] EngR 548, (1220-1623) Jenk 40, (1220) 145 ER 29 (D)
Links: Commonlii
Ratio:An assize is brought before A and B justices, between C and D. A. dies, C, is associated to B. to take this assise, the assise can’t proceed ; for C. can’t be a judge and party in his own cause, and he can’t be summoned and severed ; for this must be awarded by him and the other justice, and he can’t sever himself ; and B can’t proceed alone, for two are appointed to take this assise.

Last Update: 03-Jul-16
Ref: 461460

Collier v Hicks; 7 Jun 1831

References: (1831) 2 B & Ad 663, [1831] EngR 686, (1831) 109 ER 1290
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Lord Tenterden CJ
Trespass for assaulting, and turning plaintiff out of a police office. Plea, that two of the defendants, being justices of the peace, were assembled in a police office to adjudicate upon an information against AB for an offence against a penal statute, and were proceeding to hear and determine the same, when the plaintiff (being an attorney) entered the police office with the informer, not as his friend or as a spectator, but for the avowed purpose of acting as his attorney and advocate touching the information ; and as such attorney and advocate, without the leave, and against the will, of the justices, was taking notes of the evidence of a witness then under examination before them, touching the matter of the said information, and was acting and taking a part in the proceedings as an attorney or advocate on behalf of the informer; that the above two defendants stated to the plaintiff, that it was not their practice to suffer any person to appear and take part in any proceedings before them as an attorney or advocate, and requested him to desist from so doing; and although they were willing to permit the plaintiff to remain in the police office as one of the public, yet that he would not desist from taking a part in the proceedings as such attorney or advocate, but asserted his right to be present, and to take such part, and to act as such attorney and advocate for the informer; and unlawfully, and against the will of the justices, continued in the police office, taking part and acting as aforesaid, in contempt of the justices ; whereupon, by order of the above two defendants, the other defendants turned the plaintiff out of the office :
Held: on demurrer, that this was a good plea, inasmuch as no person has by law a right to act as an advocate on the trial of an information before justices of the peace, without their permission.
Lord Tenterden CJ said: ‘Any person, whether he be a professional man or not, may attend as a friend of either party, may take notes, may quietly make suggestions, and give advice; but no one can demand to take part in the proceedings as an advocate, contrary to the regulations of the court as settled by the discretion of the Justices.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – McKenzie -v- McKenzie CA ([1971] P 33, [1970] 3 WLR 472, CAT 679/1991)
    Mr McKenzie was a litigant in person who wished to be assisted by a young Australian barrister, gratuitously, in the conduct of his case by sitting beside the husband in Court and prompting him. The hearing was in open Court . The friend’s conduct . .
  • Cited – O and others (Children); In re O (Children), In re W-R (a Child), In re W (Children) CA (Bailii, [2005] EWCA Civ 759, Times 27-Jun-05)
    In each case litigants in person had sought to be allowed to have the assistance and services of a Mackenzie friend in children cases. In one case, the court had not allowed confidential documents to be disclosed to the friend.
    Held: The . .
  • Cited – Regina -v- Bow County Court Ex parte Pelling QBD (Times 08-Mar-99, Bailii, [1999] EWHC Admin 181)
    Mr Pelling sought to act as a McKenzie friend. On being refused he sought judicial review of he decision to exclude him.
    Held: Review was refused. A McKenzie friend has himself no locus to challenge a decision by a county court judge not to . .

Practice Direction (Justices: Clerk to Court); 2 Oct 2000

References: [2000] 4 All ER 895, [2000] 1 WLR 1886
Coram: Lord Woolf LCJ
Lord Woolf gave guidance as to the duties of the clerk to the magistrates as to the manner of assistance to be provided to them. He set out that it was the responsibility of the legal adviser to provide the justices with any advice they might require properly to perform their functions whether or not the justices had requested that advice, on questions of law; questions of mixed law and fact; matters of practice and procedure; the range of penalties available; any relevant decisions of the superior courts or other guidelines; other issues relevant to the matter before the court; and the appropriate decision-making structure to be applied in any given case. In addition to advising the justices it was his responsibility to assist the court, where appropriate, as to the formulation of reasons and the recording of those reasons. The Practice Direction then goes on to note (paragraph 4) that a justice’s clerk or legal adviser must not play any part in making findings of fact. It adds that he may assist the bench by reminding him of the evidence, using any notes of the proceedings for this purpose. The practice direction is clear that if the justice’s clerk gives any advice to a bench he should give the parties or advocates an opportunity of repeating any relevant submissions prior to that advice being given. If it is given in private he should report that advice to the parties, and the advice should be regarded as provisional and clearly stated to be so. The adviser should subsequently repeat the substance of that advice in open court and give the parties an opportunity to make any representations they wish on that provisional advice. The legal adviser should then state in open court whether the provisional advice is confirmed or, if it is varied, the nature of the variation.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Nunn -v- Suffolk Constabulary and Another Admn (Bailii, [2012] EWHC 1186 (Admin))
    The claimant had been convicted of murder and his appeal had failed. He now sought disclosure if the forensic material held by the police to his own legal team.
    Held: Permission to apply for review was granted, but the claim failed. ‘It is . .