The Gazette 1967/71

The police have no power to retain passports which they have taken and have not returned simply because they wish to prevent the holders from leaving the country pending police inquiries may be involved. If they have no grounds for arresting the holders they should be allowed to leave. Ct. of Appeal 31/10/69 Ghani and others v. lones. A court of summary jurisdiction which has already unequivocally accepted a plea of guilty by a person accused of an offence is not in law debarred from per mitting the accused to change his plea to not guilty at any time before the case is disposed of by sentence. That rule( which has applied for generations on indistment, applies equally in magistrates' courts; and decisions of the Queen's Bench Divisional Court to the contrary effect since 1964 were based on a misapprehension of the law and must be overruled. House of Lords Smith (an infant) by Parsons (his next friend) v. Manchester City Recorder and others. A company must be in liquidation before a prosecution can be initiated under section 332(3) of the Companies Act, 1948, in respect of alleged fraululent trading against any person knowingly a party to such fraud while the company was a going concern. House of Lords 27/11/69 Director of Public Prosecu tions v. Schildkamp. The conviction of a driver who refused to provide specimens for a laboratory test contrary to section 3 of the Road Safety Act, 1967, was upheld by Queen's Bench Divisional Court (the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Ashworth and Mr. Justice Cantley) even though 26 minutes after his refusal he volunteered to provide the required specimen. Q.B.D. 4/11/69 Procaj v. lohnstone. When an order is sought to commit a person to prison for contempt of court, the court before making the order must be satisfied "beyond reasonable doubt" that the contempt has been committed, and the person seeking the order must discharge the high burden applicable in the criminal courts of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the offence has been committed, for contempt of court is in the nature of a criminal matter for which a person may be sent to prison for an indefinite time. Ct. of Appesal 21/7/69 In Re Bramblevale Ltd. Damages, awards and judgements The devaluation of sterling between the date of the termination of salvage services and the date of the award cannot properly be taken into account in fixing the amount of the award. Ct. of Appeal 9/10/69 The Teh Hu. When a warrant for possession of premises originally authorized also a levy on goods in the sum of £87-5 being £83 for mesne profits and £4-5 for the costs of the warrant, but was subsequently suspended "as to money judgement" and the bailiff levied on goods to a value consistent only with £87-5, the execution was so ex cessive as to constitute a tortious wrong even though no malice on the part of the bailiff was proved. Ct. of Appeal 3/11/69 Moore v. Lambeth County Courts Registrar and others. 87

When dismissing with costs a motorist's appeal against conviction for driving with excess blood alcohol, the Divisional Court said that the case raised a point of great importance and intimated that, if possible, an appeal should go to the House of Lords. The point is: "Whether, on the true construction of section 2(1) of the 1967 Act, in cases where a suspicion arises with respect to a person driving while the vehicle is in motion, that person, if immediately pursued by a constable in uniform, may be required to provide a specim of breath for the breath test notwithstanding that, at the conclusion of the pursuit, he is no longer a 'person driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle The safeguard against oppression and the denial of natural justice in all extradition cases in the unfettered discretion conferred by the Extradition Act, 1870, on the Secretary of State for Home Affairs to refuse to sur render a person whenever in his view it would be wrong, unjust, or oppressive to do so. But a magistrate who has sufficient evidence before him to commit a person to prison pending extradition cannot refuse to commit because for some other reason it would be oppressive or contrary to natural justice to do so. House of Lords Atkinson v. United States Government and others. The test for ascertaining whether a defendant charged with a major offence under section 6 (3) of the Criminal Law Act, 1967, was formulated by the Court in reserved judgement allowing an appeal by David Springfield, alias John Darryl Eastlake, who was convicted at the Central Criminal Court inFebruary of common assault on an indictment which charged simple robbery in December, 1968, contrary to section 23(1) (a) of the Larceny Act, 1916, and did not set out any particulars of the matters relied on. Atwo months' suspended sentence had been passed. The test formulated was: "To see whether it is a necessary step towards establishing a major offence to prove the commission of the lesser offence; in other words, is the lesser offence an essential ingredient of the major one?" Ct. of Appeal 31/10/69 Regina v. Springfield Butchers who sold at one of their branches a Danish oven ready turkey marked "Norfolk King Turkey" were entitled to rely on section 24(1) of the Trade Descrip tions Act, 1968, for their defence because the offence was committed because of "the act or default of another person", the shop manager, and because they had exer cised "all due care". Ct. of Appeal 8/12/69 Beckett v. Kingston Bros. (But chers) Ltd. It is not the duty of each director to supervise the running of a company. The Court so held when allowing the appeal of a director of a company which ran a gaming club where chemin-de-fer was played without a licence, against a conviction for an offence under section 305 (3) of the Customs and Exise Act, 1952, which provides that where a company does not hold the appropriate licence and the offence is proved to be attributable to any neglect by a director, the director, as well as the company, should be deemed guilty of the offence. Ct. of Appeal 31 /10/69 Huckerby v. Elliot on a road or other public place'." Ct. of Appeal Sasson v. Taverner.