Courts of Summary Jurisdiction
| Date | 01 July 1944 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201834400800301 |
| Published date | 01 July 1944 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The
Journal of Criminal Law
VOL.
VIII.
No.3.
JULy-SEPTEMBER,
1944
Courts of
Summary
Jurisdiction
WHAT
WAS
THE
OFFENCE?
Prosecution v. Daniel Duggan
THE anonymous
author
of English Justice quotes
the
case of a chairman of a bench who remarked to a
defendant "Well, you
must
ha'
done
summat
or ye wouldn't
ha'
been summoned".
In
the
case of Daniel Duggan, which
was
heard
at
the
West
London Police Court, this senti-
ment
was shared
by
everyone, for
both
prosecution
and
defence agreed
that
something
had
been done which was
not
legal,
but
there was considerable discussion as
to
what
exactly was
the
offence which
had
been committed.
The
defendant was first brought before Mr.
Paul
Bennett
for endeavouring to procure charitable contri-
butions
under
a false pretence
contrary
to Section 4 of
the
Vagrancy Act, 1824,
and
upon
the
charge being
put
to
him, he pleaded guilty. After hearing
the
facts outlined
by
the
prosecution, however,
the
learned magistrate said
he
had
some
doubt
as to whether
the
facts justified a
conviction for
that
offence
and
he adjourned
the
case for
the
prosecution to be legally represented.
At
the
adjourned
hearing
the
solicitor for
the
prosecution agreed
that
this
charge could
not
be upheld,
and
the
defendant, who was
also legally represented, was allowed to change his plea
to
one of
not
guilty
and
no evidence was offered against
him on this charge.
The
prosecution, however,
had
preferred two
further
charges,
the
first for
attempting
to
obtain
by
means of false pretences with
intent
to
defraud
the
sum
of 3d. from a police officer,
contrary
to s. 32
(1)
of
~
1M
To continue reading
Request your trial