Divisional Court
| Published date | 01 August 1989 |
| Date | 01 August 1989 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201838905300301 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
DIVISIONAL
COURT
ADJOURNMENT
APPLICATIONS-ABSENT
WITNESSES
R. v. Bracknell Justices, ex p. Hughes &Another
It
is a fairly common occurrence in magistrates' courts for an
adjournment application to be made by one party on the ground
that a witness is not available. This case has made it clear that
justices, when considering such an application, must have regard
to the likely evidence the witness might be able to give.
In this case, reported in
[1989]
The Times March 22, an
application was made by defence counsel on the ground that an
essential witness was absent. Counsel did not inform the court of
the sort of assistance the witness could give. The case had been
adjourned anumber of times and the magistrates therefore did
not agree to a further adjournment. The case went ahead with the
prosecution's case unchallenged as defence counsel felt he was in
no position to cross-examine.
The Divisional Court made it clear that, whilst there was no
criticism of the justices reaching the decision in those circum-
stances, the clerk of the court should have enquired as to what
assistance the absent witness would give. The bench should be
informed of this information before coming to their conclusion.
Their Lordships had had the benefit of seeing the statement by
the witness and it was obvious that his evidence was relevant and
it is therefore clear that the conviction could not stand.
C. E. Bazell
Solicitor
Clerk to the Justices
North Oxfordshire
255
Journal
of
Criminal Law
CORPORATE
LIABILITY
FOR
MANSLAUGHTER
R. v. H.M. Coroner for East Kent, ex p. Spooner
This case «1988) 88
Cr.App.R.
10) was a judicial review action
arising out of the coroner's inquest into the "Herald of Free
Enterprise" disaster on March 6, 1987. An inquiry under section
55 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970 had been held under the
chairmanship of Mr. Justice Sheen. At the coroner's inquest,
relatives of some of the deceased tried to persuade the coroner
to call witnesses to establish that the company was guilty of
manslaughter. The coroner rejected the view that acompany could
be indicted for manslaughter.
The Divisional Court, Mr. Justice Bingham presiding, accepted
that on appropriate facts a company could be indicted for
manslaughter.
It
would be necessary in such a case to establish
the actus reus and the mens rea against those who were to be
identified as the company itself. On the facts, the court accepted
that there was no such case and judicial review was refused.
The case is of importance in that it adds to the law on a difficult
topic on which there are few decisions. In many similar cases
the relatives of the deceased have sought not only financial
compensation, but also a mechanism for indicting the company in
the criminal courts. This decision helps to strengthen their case.
It
does, however, show that the courts will seek evidence against
the "mind" of the company and that the question of corporate
liability should not be confused with vicarious liability.
Ruth Harrison
DRIVER
MUST STOP AND
PROVIDE
DETAILS OF NAME AND
ADDRESS ETC.
R. v. Kingston upon Thames Crown Court, ex p. Scarll
The duties and obligations of a motorist are much stricter and
absolute than many members of the public would have us believe.
In this case, reported briefly in [1989] The Times April 28, the
256
To continue reading
Request your trial