The Gazette 1972

Before Lord Justice Cairns, Lord Justice Stephenson and Mr. Justice Willis. A punter who kept £106 of £117 paid to him by a book- maker which he knew he was not entitled to because of a mistake on the bookmaker's part was held to be guilty of theft. Their Lordships, in a reserved judgment, dismissed an appeal by Donald Gilks, aged 35, a window cleaner, of Burleigh Rd., Sutton, against his conviction at South West London Quarter Sessions (Deputy Chairman, Mr. K. Bruce Campbell, Q.C.), of stealing. Regina v Gilks; Court of Appeal; 27/6/1972. The Court of Appeal (the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice MacKenna and Mr. Justice Willis) certified that a point of law of general public importance was involved in the decision dismissing the appeal of Leslie Arthur Parsons from his con- viction for driving contrary to Section 1 (1) of the Road Safety Act, 1967 {The Times, June 30th). The point was "whether an Alcotest (R) 80 device of the sort approved by the Breath Test Device (Approval) (No. 1) Order, 1968, for the purpose of the breath test defined in Section 7 (1) of the 1967 Act is a device within Section 7 (1) when used bona fide by a police officer under Section 2 and when the device before such use is part green in colour and defective by reason of corrosion so as to be capable of indicating a proportion of alcohol in the person's blood on a breath test which exceeds the prescribed limit and when such a device not so corroded when so used would not so indicate." Regina v Parsons; Court of Appeal; 4/7/1972. Before Lord Widgery, the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Willis and Mr. Justice Bridge. A motorist who drove across Oxford High Street with a slight inclination to the right in order to go from Turl Street into Alfred Street did not turn right into High Street and so commit a criminal offence. Wright v Howard; Q.B. Division; Court of Appeal. Before Lord Widgery, the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Melford Stevenson and Mr. Justice Milmo. Fraudulent use of a vehicle excise licence within Section 26 (1) of the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1971, was not proved by showing that an unlicensed car with a licence belonging to another car was left on a piece of land which was not a public road. Their Lordships dismissed a police appeal from the dismissal by Cornwall justices of an information charging F. G. Lanyon with contravening Section 26 (1) (c) by fraudulently using a certain licence on a car on a piece of land at Trelawney Estate, Madron, last January. Section 26 (1) provides: "If any person . . . fraudulently . . . uses .. . any licence .. . under this Act, he shall be liable . . . to a fine not exceeding £200 or . . . to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years." Cook v Lanyon; Road Transport; Q.B. Division; 13/7/72. Before Lord Widgery, the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Willis and Mr. Justice Bridge. No reasonable person sitting in Court when a loader at Heathrow Airport was tried on charges of obstructing its proper use and behaving in a disorderly manner could have had a reasonable suspicion that the Court was biased against him, even if the justices' clerk had said "We know all about the loaders at the airport and their thieving." The circum- stances would not have created a reasonable suspicion of bias in the mind of any reasonable person. Regina v Uxbridge Justices ex parte Burbridge; Q R. Divi sion; 2/6/72. Defamation Before Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Phillimore and Lord Justice Cairns. It is improper and highly embarrassing to the defendants and the Court for plaintiffs who allege that a long newspaper article is defamatory of them to "throw" the whole article at them without specifying in the statement of claim what are the particular passages of which they complain and in what way they say those passages are defamatory of them. A state- ment of claim which is defective in those respects cannot stand. DDSA Pharmaceuticals Ltd* v Times Newspapers Ltd. and Another; Court of Appeal; 27/6/1972. EEC Before Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Phillimore and Lord Justice Cairns.

The Courts of this country will not take cognisance of (he Treaty of Accession to the Treaty of Rome (signed at Brussels on January 22nd) until its terms have been enacted in an Act of Parliament. The Treaty was signed on behalf of the Crown in the exercise of the prerogative as embodied in the Bill of Rights, 1688. McWhirter v Attorney-General; Court of Appeal; 30/6/72. Family The President held that when the Court was considering an application for financial provision for either party following dissolution of marriage it had no power to make more than one lump sum order. His Lordship was giving judgment in open court after hearing in chambers an application by a wife for a further lump sum order. C. v C.; Family Division; 13/7/1972. The Divisional Court of the Family Division dismissed an appeal by a father from the refusal of justices to vary a custody order relating to his eldest son, now 16. The justices had granted custody of all four children of the family to the mother under the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates Courts) Act, 1960, after finding the father guilty of persistent cruelty to the mother. The view of Professor Cheshire that there was judicial authority in England that capacity to marry was governed not by the pre-marriage lex domicilii of each party but by the law of the intended matrimonia' home was adopted by Mr. Justice Cumming-Bruce. His Lordship held, on a preliminary poin' 'hat a marriage contracted by Mrs. M. I. Radwan, now ol vlolden Road, Finchley, under Muslim law before the E,* /ptian Consul General in Paris in 1951 at a time when sh Í was a British national with an English domicile, to Mr. J. P. Radwan, whose domicile then was Egyptian, was valid according to English law. She had petitioned for divorce on the ground of cruelty. Radwan v Radwan; Family Division; 18/7/19'"-'. Gaming and Lotteries Before Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Cest, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Diplock and Lord Salmon. It is not an essential ingredient of an unlawful lottery that there should be a fund or prizes in the hands of the promoters for them to distribute when the prize winners are ascertained provided the scheme has the overall, object of distributing money by chance. Atkinson v Murrell; House of Lords; 5/7/1972. Landlord and Tenant Before Lord Denning, the Master ot the Rolls, Lord Justice Buckley and Lord Justice Cairns. When money is demanded as rent for a period after the landlord knows of facts giving rise to a forfeiture, is paid as rent and accepted as rent, tl.e law regards the demand and acceptance as unequivocal acts which constitute a waiver of the forfeiture. This is so notwithstanding that the demand and acceptance was due to an error in the office of the landlords' agents and the tenant knew that the landlords wished to end his tenancy. In exceptional circumstances the Court, in the exercise of its discretion under Section 146 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, can grant relief from forfeiture notwithstanding a tenant's breach of covenant in unlawfully keeping a brothel on the premises contrary to Section 33 of the Sexual Offences Act, 1956, and Section 6 of the Sexual Offences Act, 1967. Central Estates (Belgravia) Ltd. v Woolfar; Court of Appeal; 20/6/1972. Limitation of Time Before Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth y-Gest, Lord Pear- son, Lord Simon of Glaisdale and Lord Salmon. A workman who contracted asbestosis at work and was awarded disability benefit for it in 1964 but did not get legal advice and bring an action against his employers until 1967 because in 1964 the works manager in his non-union factory wrongly told him that he could not get benefit and bring an action as well, was held by a majority of the House of Lords (Lord Reid, Lord Morris and Lord Pearson) to be entitled to keep an award of £13,700 damages by Mr. Justice Thesiger. Central Asbestos Co. Ltd. v Dodel; House of Lords; 28/6/72. - 2 2 2 C. v C.; Court of Appeal; 4/7/1972. Before Mr. Justice C imming-Bruce.