Comment
| Published date | 01 February 1985 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201838504900111 |
| Date | 01 February 1985 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
COMMENT
REVIEWING
THE
DECISIONS OF MAGISTRATES
Magistrates and the exact scope of their jurisdiction have recently
been the subject of two important decisions. During the committal
proceedings in R. v. Highbury Magistrates Court, ex p. Boyce and
Others (1984) 79 Cr.App.R. 132, a witness for the prosecution was
allowed to make a dock identification despite an objection on the
ground that no identification
parade
had been held and that it
involved abreach of the Attorney-General's guidelines given in the
House of Commons on May 27, 1976. In permitting that identifica-
tion to be made, it seems that the magistrate
had
refused to hear the
arguments of the accused's solicitor on their merits, considering
himself bound by the decision in R. v. Horsham Justices ex p.
Bukhari (1982) 74 Cr.App.R. 291.
The
four accused were now
seeking judicial review of the magistrate's decision to commit them
for trial.
The
Divisional Court first reminded everyone of one practical
distinction between acting within and acting beyond one's juris-
diction; it will not interfere in the former situation whereas it will (or
may) in the latter. So, into which category does the admission of
inadmissible evidence fall?
McCullough J., on behalfof the court, stated his conclusions thus:
(i) that it was for the court of trial and not the examining
magistrates to decide whether, in their discretion, legally
admissible evidence ought
not
to be adduced.
The
reason?
Examining magistrates did not have that discretion;
(ii) that acommittal will not be quashed simply because
inadmissible evidence has been admitted because that does
not involve a lack of jurisdiction;
(iii) that, even if he was wrong on (i) and examining justices did
have a discretion, the court will still not quash a decision not
to exclude that evidence, however wrongly based.
The whole
tenor
of the judge's approach, combined with his
obvious approval of the words of Glidewell and Forbes J.J. in
61
To continue reading
Request your trial