Crown Courts
| DOI | 10.1177/002201837303700302 |
| Published date | 01 July 1973 |
| Date | 01 July 1973 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Crown
Courts
POWER
TO
AMEND
INFORMATION
R.
v. Lynch
THE Appellant, a boy of 14,
had
appeared before
the
Weston-
Super-Mare
Justices on
an
information which charged
him
that,
without
lawful excuse, he
had
destroyed by fire one cwt. of
hay
intending to destroy such property,
contrary
to section 1
(1)
and
(3)
of the Criminal
Damage
Act, 1971.
At
the
conclusion of the case,
after
hearing evidence
and
sub-
missions, the Bench announced
that
they were convicting the boy
of setting fire to
"a
quantity
of
hay".
An appeal was
made
to
the
Crown
Court
which,
but
for
the
preliminary point hereinafter
mentioned, would have raised
the
point
that
the
boy was merely
reckless (if
that)
and
the information
did
not
charge
that
he reck-
lessly set fire to the hay.
It
was then discovered
that
the Certificate
of Conviction sent to the
Crown
Court
was in
the
terms of
the
in-
formation (which
had
not
been amended
during
the Magistrates'
hearing)
and
purported
to record aconviction in respect of 1
cwt
of hay. At the outset of
the
appeal to the Bristol
Crown
Court
(Deputy
Circuit
Judge
Sir
Ian
Lewis, now His
Honour
Judge
Sir
Ian
Lewis) on the 12 April 1973, Counsel for the Appellant
first submitted
that
the record of conviction was incorrect in
referring to 1
cwt
of
hay
and
he was
prepared
to call the Solicitor
who
had
appeared before the Magistrates
and
who
had
recorded
a note of
what
the
Court
had
said,
and
also to
put
in evidence the
Notice of Conviction
and
fine served on the boy's father which
referred to
"a
quantity
of
hay".
Counsel
argued
that,
on the
authority of R. v..Campbell [1953] 2 Q. B. 585, the effective convic-
tion was the conviction as announced by the Magistrates in
Court
and,
that,
although section 9 ( 1) of
the
Courts Act, 1971, gave the
Crown
Court
power to correct
any
error
in the
order
incorporating
the decision announced,
such
acorrection was improper in this
case, for the conviction
thus
amended would be too vague
and
156
To continue reading
Request your trial