Courts of Summary Jurisdiction
| DOI | 10.1177/002201834000400201 |
| Published date | 01 April 1940 |
| Date | 01 April 1940 |
| Subject Matter | Courts of Summary Jurisdiction |
The
Journal
of
Crinlil1.al
Law
VOL.
IV.
NO.2.
APRIL-JUNE,
1940
Courts
of
Summary Jurisdiction
PUBLISHING
AND
EXHIBITING
FOR SALE OBSCENE HANDBILLS
R. v. Parkin
AT
the Doncaster West Riding court recently adefendant
raised the question as to whether aprinted handbill
could possibly be held to be obscene when it did not con-
tain a single obscene word.
The
police came into possession of a handbill, beating
the
title"
Hitler's
Courtship".
At the end of
everyother
Line
was a dotted blank, to be filled in by the imagination of the
reader. As the printed matter was in a crude sort of rhyme,
it followed that after the reader had found a word for the
end of the second line, he had some guide as to the word
intended to be used to complete the fourth line, and so on.
Hthe reader filled in the blanks with words which were
obviously intended to be used, the whole document then
became an exceedingly filthy and obscene publication.
The
defendant, Wilfred Anthony Parkin, however,
argued before the justices that the words chosen were from
the minds of the readers, and were not supplied by him,
and
that
the obscenity, therefore, must be in the minds of
the
readers.
It
was not his business, as a printer, he said,
to tell people what they should think when they read the
bill. He said that the substance of the pamphlet had been
associated with various famous people, including Kruger
130
THE
JOURNAL
OF
CRIMINAL
LAW
and the Kaiser, and that hundreds of thousands of the hand-
bills had been circulated all over the country.
Asearch warrant had been obtained by the police under
section Iof the Obscene Publications Act, 1857, and some
1,500 handbills were produced to the court.
The
justices declined to accept the somewhat ingenious
defence raised by the defendant, and ordered the handbills
to be destroyed, subject to the preservation ofacertain
number as evidence in further proceedings.
Later the defendant was prosecuted for the common law
misdemeanour of publishing and exhibiting obscene hand-
bills, and the case was committed to the West Riding quarter
sessions.
The
defendant elaborated the same defence, at great
length, at quarter sessions,
but
the county justices refused to
entertain it, and he was committed to prison for twelve
calendar months, with hard labour.
The
police stated that the defendant, who was sixty
years of age, had been unemployed since 1921, and lived on
public funds.
In
August, 1938, the Doncaster court had
impounded an obscene publication which he had distributed
and which constituted a libel on a member of the Royal
Family. He was severely cautioned on that occasion.
He next appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal
against conviction and sentence.
Mr.
Justice Charles, giving the judgment of the Court,
described the document as of " the most filthy description ".
The
sentence, he said, was severe,
but
the offence was in its
nature adangerous one because of the effect that could be
produced by the document on the minds of young people,
and, for that reason, the punishment was not excessive.
The
three courts concerned in the case appear to have
been unanimous in finding that there can be obscenity in a
document by suggestion, no obscene words being actually
printed, and
that
if the reader is prompted by the context
to supply words which are obscene to fit the blanks, the
publisher must take the risk.
COURTS
OF
SUMMARY
JURISDICTION
131
BREACHES OF PROBATION
ORDERS:
COURTS
WHICH
MAY
DEM.
WITH
THEM
R. v. W. H. C. Jones
At Clerkenwell police court on zoth February, William
Henry Charles Jones appeared upon a warrant issued by the
London Quarter Sessions charged with the breach of a
condition of a recognizance entered into by him at
that
court
under the Probation of Offenders Acts.
The
magistrate,
Mr.
Walter Hedley, K.C., decided
not
to take any part in the proceedings except to obtain
the
admission of the defendant that he was the person named
in the warrant and
that
he had been placed on probation
by the superior court. Upon his admission of these facts the
defendant was remanded to be dealt with at the next Sessions.
Under
the Probation of Offenders Act, H)07, the general
rule is
that
the court which placed a person on probation was
the only court which could impose a sentence upon him or
otherwise deal with him if he later broke his recognizance.
Section 6 (2) and (3) provide
:-
" (2)
The
offender, when apprehended, shall, if
not
brought forthwith before the court before which he is bound
by his recognizance to appear for conviction or sentence, be
brought before a court of summary jurisdiction.
" (3)
The
court before which an offender on apprehen-
sion is brought . . . may, if it is not the court before which
he is bound by his recognizance to appear for conviction
or sentence, remand him to custody or on bail until he can
be brought before the last-mentioned court."
This
general rule has been modified by the Criminal
Justice Act, 1925, section 7 (4), which allows a fine of
£10
to be imposed not only by the court which made the original
order,
but
also bv a court before which the defaulter is brought
under the
Prob~tion
of Offenders Act, 1907, section 6 (3).
In most cases, however, it will be desirable to pass him
back to the court by which he was first placed on probation.
To continue reading
Request your trial