Divisional Court Cases
| Published date | 01 October 1968 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201836803200402 |
| Date | 01 October 1968 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Divisional
Court
Cases
ELECTION
OF SUMMARY
TRIAL
R. v.
Kettering
Justices:
ex
parte
Patmore
WHEN a defendant is entitled on a summary charge to elect to
be tried by a
jury
must the question whether he claims the
right to be so tried be
put
to the defendant personally or is it sufficient
if
the question is mooted in his presence
and
his advocate answers for
him?
This was what the Court
had
to decide in the above case (1968
IW.L.R.
1.4-38).
The
facts out
of
whichit arose were
that
on the 9 December 1967
the applicant Patmore together with two other men appeared before
Kettering justices charged with anumber
of
summary offences in
respect
of
only one
of
which the applicant
had
the right to be tried
by a jury. This was the offence of fraudulently using a vehicle excise
licence contrary to s.17
of
the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1962. Before
the hearing the solicitor for the prosecution
and
the solicitor for the
defence met
and
as a result of certain documents being produced
the prosecutor intimated that no evidence would be called on a
number
of
the charges. When the charges came on for hearing they
were read out, the prosecuting solicitor intimating in which cases
no evidence would be given.
What
precisely happened when the
charge under s.17
of
the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1962 was reached was
subsequently in dispute,
but
the High Court accepted the version
of
events given in an affidavit by the chairman
of
the justices. This was
that the deputy clerk stated in open court (though not addressing
any
particular person)
that
this charge was the only one on which the
defendant
had
the right of trial by
jury.
The
applicant's solicitor then
said
"My
client elects to be tried by this court
and
pleads not
guilty".
The
applicant was thereafter convicted on this charge.
On
the 27
June
1968 an application was made to a Divisional
Court consisting
of
Lord Parker C.J.,
James
and
Bridge lJ. for an
order
of
cmiorari
to quash the conviction on the ground
that
the
justices
had
failed to comply with the requirements ofs.25(3)
of
the
Magistrate's Courts Act 1952 the relevant terms
of
which are:
"A
magistrates' court before which a person is charged with a
223
To continue reading
Request your trial