Fraser v Mudge
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE ORMROD |
| Judgment Date | 12 June 1975 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1975] EWCA Civ J0612-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 12 June 1975 |
[1975] EWCA Civ J0612-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Exparte application from refusal of Mr. Justice Chapman to grant an injunction.
Revised
The Master of The Rolls (Lord Denning),
Lord Justice Roskill and
Lord Justice Ormrod.
Mr. S. SEDLEY (instructed by Messrs. Bindman and Partners) appeared on behalf of the Appellant Mr. Fraser.
THERE was no other appearance.
This is an unusual application on behalf of Mr. Francis Davidson Fraser. He is at present serving a long sentence of imprisonment and is detained in Her Majesty's Prison at Bristol. It is said that last week end he assaulted a prison officer. He is charged with an offence against prison discipline. It is to be heard by an adjudication committee of the Board of Visitors at 2.15 today at Bristol Prison. Now he or some one on his behalf has instructed lawyers. They wish to represent him at the hearing by the Board of Visitors. They sent a telegram to the Governor of the Prison:-
"He our client Frazer No. 536648 we are instructed to represent him at adjudication by Board of Visitors Request adjudication delayed until we are able to visit to take further Instructions." They have had no reply to that telegram. They have spoken by telephone to the clerk to the Board of Visitors. He said he would not advise the Board either to allow legal representation or to adjourn the inquiry. Whereupon a writ has been issued today against the three named members of the Board of Inquiry seeking a declaration that he is entitled to be represented by solicitor and Counsel and an injunction restraining the Board from inquiring into the charge until he has had an opportunity of appearing by lawyers. The Judge has refused. Now Mr. Sedley applies to this Court.
The Prison Act of 1952 says that Rules may be made for ensuring that a prisoner who is charged with any offence under the Rules should be given a proper opportunity of presenting his case. Rule 49(2) is in virtually the same words. It says that at any inquiry into a charge against a prisoner he should be given a full opportunity of hearing what is alleged against him and of presenting his case. The Rule applies not only to a charge before the Boardof Visitors, but also to an inquiry made by the Governor, and also in addition to an inquiry by an officer appointed by the Secretary of State. The point is one, therefore, of very considerable importance.
Mr. Sedley has referred us to the case of Pett v. Greyhound Racing Association Ltd. (1969) 1 Q. B. 125, where a charge was made before the Greyhound Racing Association that dogs had been doped. We indicated that it might well be proper that a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Board of Visitors of HM Prison, The Maze, ex parte Hone
...he regarded that matter as being within the discretion of the tribunal. A similar suggestion was rejected by the Court of Appeal in Fraser v. Mudge [1975] 1 W.L.R. 1132, a case which is very much in point in the present case. There a prisoner asked for an injunction to restrain a board of v......
-
National Commercial Bank Jamaica Ltd v Industrial Disputes Tribunal and Another
...whether there was in fact such a right, Lord Lowry LCJ, in arriving at his decision examined a number of decisions including Fraser v Mudge and Others [1975] 1 WLR 1132 in which Lord Denning placed hearings into matters regarding indiscipline in prisons, in the armed forces and on the sea, ......
-
R v Board of Visitors of Hull Prison, ex parte St Germain
...is not "in a criminal cause or matter"; that Amand'S case does not apply; and that this Court has jurisdiction. Reference was made to Eraser v. Mudge (1975) 1 Weekly law Reports 1132, where this Court refused an ex parte application on behalf of a prisoner (the application having been refus......
- Haritou v Skourdoumbis