Appeals by the Prosecution
| DOI | 10.1177/002201834701100310 |
| Published date | 01 July 1947 |
| Date | 01 July 1947 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Appeals
by
the
Prosecution
APP EALS against
the
decision of magistrates to acquit a
defendant or
to
deal with him under
the
Probation
of Offenders Act are so infrequent
that
magistrates are
sometimes in danger of thinking
that
by
dealing with a case
in
these ways
they
can be sure of escaping a
scrutiny
of
their
decisions
by
the
High
Court.
How
ill-founded
this
belief is has been shown several times recently, particularly
in cases coming before
the
Divisional Court concerning
charges
under
the
Road
Traffic Acts.
The prosecutor
has
no general right of appeal
to
Quarter
Sessions against
an
acquittal such as
the
defendant
has against conviction
by
virtue of
the
Summary
Juris-
diction Act, 1879, s. 31.
He
is restricted
to
the
far
more
cumbrous
and
expensive device of appeal
by
case stated,
and
then
can do so only
if
he can show
that
the
court
has
misdirected itself on a
point
of law.
The
Act which enables
the
prosecutor
to
ask
for
a case
to
be
stated
on acquittal is
the
Summary Jurisdiction Act,
1857, section 2 of which provides
that
either
party
to
the
proceedings may, if dissatisfied with
the
said determination
as being erroneous in
point
of law,
apply
in writing within
three days
after
the
decision for a case
to
be stated.
In
Davis v. Douglas (1859; 23
J.P.
135)
it
was ques-
tioned whether
the
right
to
ask for a case
to
be
stated
applied
to
the
prosecutor as well as to
the
defendant,
and
the
Court unanimously decided
that
it
did, Martin B.
observing
that
the
Act
"was
passed
to
put
an
end
to
the
scandal of conflicting decisions in cases of
matters
in which
justices
have
asummary jurisdiction.
The
statute
is a
most beneficial one
and
ought
not
to
be construed with
any
extreme strictness".
In
R. v. Newport
(SaloP)
Justices (1929; 2
K.B.
416;
93 J.P. 179)
an
attempt
was made
to
show
that
the
Sum-
mary
Jurisdiction Act, 1879, s. 33
had
destroyed
the
right
of
the
prosecution to appeal in this way as
the
later
Act
used
the
words 'person aggrieved'.
It
was argued
that
this
317
To continue reading
Request your trial