Collier v Hicks
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 June 1831 |
| Date | 07 June 1831 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 109 E.R. 1290
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 9 L. J. K. B. O. S. 300; 9 L. J. M. C. O. S. 138.
collier, gent, one, &c. against sir william higks, bart., robert capper, esq., G. russell, and E. castle. Tuesday, June 7th, 1831, 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 A. B. 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. [S. C. 9 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 300; 9 L. J. M. C. 0. S. 138.] Trespass for assaulting the plaintiff, and turning him out of a police-office at Cheltenham, in the county of Gloucester. Plea, that on the 3d of December 1829, to wit, at, &c., one William Latham appeared before and informed J. C. Esq., one of His Majesty's justices of the peace for the county of Gloucester, that one J. Ricbings did on the 7th of September [664] then last past drive a certain carriage or vehicle, with passengers to be conveyed for hire at separate fares upon a public highway, not having thereon a plate or plates as directed by 7 G. 4, c. 33, contrary to the statute in that case made and provided, which imposed a penalty of 201. for the said offence; and that the said J. C. duly issued his summons for the appearance of the said J. Richings, on Tuesday the 8th of December then instant, to answer the said complaint and information; that the summons was served upon the said J. Richings, and that the defendants Sir W. Hicks, Bart, and R. Capper, Esq., two of the justices assigned to keep the peace for the said county.of Gloucester, at the said time when, &c., to wit, on the said 8th of December, were duly assembled in the said police office in the declaration mentioned, together with certain other justices, to hear and adjudicate upon the said information and complaint; that the said J. Riehings on that occasion appeared before the defendants Hicks and Capper, and the other justices; and the defendants Hicks and Capper, and the other justices, as such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Engineers' and Managers' Association v Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
-
R v Kirk (Maurice)
...not infrequent, solicitors performing that function. It has the approval of the courts going back for over 150 years. 24 In the case of Collier and Hicks (1831) Barnewall & Adolphus's Reports 663, Lord Tenterden C.J., in the course of giving judgment in what were criminal proceedings, said ......
-
Noueiri v Paragon Finance Plc
...and others similarly qualified could not be prevented from acting as advocates (see the extracts from the judgments in Collier v Hicks (1831) 2 B & Ad 663 at pp 668 and 672 cited by Lord Pearson in O'Toole v Scott [1965] AC 939, 952C-F). 60 The existence or otherwise of a right of audience ......
-
R v Bow County Court, ex parte Pelling
...applicant and the applicant was entitled to provide them. 10The status of a McKenzie Friend was first recognised in Collier v Hicks [1831] 2 B & Ad.663. Lord Tenterden C J said at p669: "Any person, whether he be a professional man or not, may attend as a friend of either party, may take no......
-
Rigtingwysers uit die Engelse Regshulpstelsel
...die goedkeuring van die regshulpraad onderworpe. ABWOR kan onder sekere omstandighede ook in die howe toegestaan 106 Collier v Hicks (1831) 109 ER 1290 1292. 107 A 1 van die Legal Aid Act 1988. 108 A 2(2). 109 A 2(3). 110 Young 1991 Cornell LR 387. 111 A 2(4). 112 SI 1989/550 soos gewysig. ......
-
The Development of the McKenzie Friend
...Proceedings by Coffey and others (Unreported) [2013] IESC 11 (Fennelly J.) (26 February 2013). 153 All ER 1034, 1039. 16Collier v. Hicks 2 B. & AD. 663. [2017] Irish Judicial Studies Journal Vol 1 33 IRISH JUDICIAL STUDIES JOURNAL ♦ Any persons, whether legally qualified or not, may attend ......
-
Privacy's New Paradigm: The Rise and Reform of the In Camera Rule
...on the Media other than defamation”, TCD Law School, 22/01/2000. See McCormack, supra, n.8. 38 [1970] 3 All E.R. 1034. 39 (1831) 2 B. & Ad. 663. 40 [1999] 1 I.L.R.M. 549. 41 Quinn v Bank of Ireland, unreported, Supreme Court, 1994, No. 322, October 13, 1995. 42 [1991] 3 All E.R. 935. 43 R v......
-
Reform of the Legal Profession: An Alternative ‘Way Ahead’
...have the power of regulating its own proceedings in all cases where they arenot already regulated by ancient usage’: Collier vHicks (1831) 2 B & Ad 663, 672. See also D. PannickAdvocates (Oxford: OUP, 1992) 175.9 Abel, n 3 above, 143.10 ibid 47.11 G.H. Treitel, ‘Jane Austen and the Law’ (19......