Courts of Summary Jurisdiction
| Date | 01 July 1970 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201837003400301 |
| Published date | 01 July 1970 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The
Joumal of
Criminal
Law
Vol. XXXIV. NO.3
JULY
I970
Courts
of
Summary Jurisdiction
NOT
WHAT
THEY
SEEM:
IMPERSONATION
IN
COURT
MAGIST
RA
TES
are
used to surprises
but
even
the
Magistrates
were astonished by
an
intervention which occurred
at
Balham
Magistrates
Court
in a careless driving case.
It
was a
normal
Wednes-
day
afternoon
and
the
proceedings
had
followed
the
normal
course.
The
defendant
had
pleaded
guilty, stated his exact
date
of
birth,
produced
his driving licence
and
spoken in mitigation
and
the
Magistrates were on
the
point
of pronouncing sentence
when
the
solicitor for
the
prosecution, with astartled look on his face, inter-
vened to say
that
he understood
that
the
defendant
might
not
have
been
the
person who
had
been
driving
at
the
time.
The
Clerk
put
this to
the
defendant who
admitted
it was
true
and
gave adifferent
name
for himself
and
an
address in
the
Midlands
which it was
quite
impossible to verify
at
that
stage
of
the
day.
After ashort retirement
the
Magistrates
returned
and
stated
that
they
had
in effect
heard
two different stories from
the
person before
the
Court
and
it would be wrong
at
this stage to say which was
correct
without
the
most stringent investigation by
the
police.
The
careless driving allegation must
remain
for
the
moment
but
a
plea
of
not
guilty would be entered.
If
an
impersonation
had
occurred,
the
Clerk was if necessary to
report
the
matter
to
the
Director
of
Public Prosecutions as it would
appear
to be a
plain
attempt
to
pervert
the
course
of
justice.
In
view
of
the
gravity
of
the
matter
and
in
order
to verify his
name
and
address it would be necessary for
the
defendant to be kept
in
custody
until
the
next convenient
Court.
The
defendant was
remanded
in custody for some thirty-six hours,
the
Magistrates giving as
their
reason s.18(5)(d)
of
the
Criminal
Justice
Act, 1967,
that
is,
"where
it appears to
the
Court
that
it is
necessary to
detain
him
to establish his identity
or
address".
The
subsequent police enquiries established
that
there
had
in
fact been asubstitution
and
that
the
true
defendant
and
his imper-
sonator were cousins.
There
was
nothing
sinister involved; no
question
of
driving whilst disqualified
or
avoiding compulsory
145
To continue reading
Request your trial