Fry, ex parte
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE SINGLETON |
| Judgment Date | 05 April 1954 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1954] EWCA Civ J0405-1 |
| Date | 05 April 1954 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
[1954] EWCA Civ J0405-1
In the Supreme Court of Judicature,
Court of Appeal.
Lord Justice Singleton,
Lord Justice Hodson, and
Lord Justice Morris.
(Ex-parte Application).
Counsel for the Applicant: MR H.V. LLOYD-JONES, Q.C., and MR PETER PAIN, instructed by Messrs W.H, Thompson.
The Applicant, Mr Ronald Alexander Fry, is a fireman in the county of Glamorgan Fire Brigade. He applied to the Divisional Court seeking an order of Certiorari to remove into that Court and to quash a decision made by the Chief Fire officer of the County of Glamorgan Fire Brigade under the Fire services (Discipline) Regulations of 1948, which wore made pursuant to the Fire Services Act, 1947. The Divisional Court refused to grant the relief sought, and Mr Fry applies to this Court.
By the Fire Services Act, 1947, Section 4: "… the council of every county and country borough shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be the fire authority for the area of the council", and power was given by the Act under which the county Council can delegate certain of its powers.
The Fire Service (Discipline) Regulations of 1948, Statutory Instrument No. 545 of 1948, deals, as the name shows, with questions of discipline. Part I, Regulation 1: "A member of a fire brigade commits an offence against discipline (hereafter in those Regulations referred to as an 'effence') if he commite one or more of the offences set out in the schedule hereto."
Regulation No. 2: "The chief officer, if he decides that a member of the fire brigade shall be charged with an offence, shall as soon as possible cause him to be informed in writing of the charge together with such particulars as will leave the accused under no misapprehension as to the precise nature of the allegations on which the charge is based."
Sub-Regulation(2): "The accused shall also be be given as soon as possible copies of any report, complaint, or other written allegation on which the charge may be founded and any reports thereon, notwithstanding that theymay be confidential."
Regulation 8 (5) provides that "The accused may, within three days of the notification to him of a decision of the disciplinary tribunal to impose a punishment other than a caution, appeal to the fire authority by giving notice in writing to that effect to the chief officer, and where the decision is one which under paragraph ( 1) or (2) of this Regulation would have required confirmation, it shall, subject to this appeal, have offcat without confirmation."
Regulation No. 13, punishments: "An offence may be punished by – (a) dismissed; (b) being required to resign as an alternative to dismissal forthwith or at such lator date as may be specified; (c) reduction in rank; (d) stoppage of pay; (e) reprimand; (f) caution"; and I should mention Regulation No. 5 (1): "The fire authority may direct that any class or description of case shall be heard by them, but subject to any such direction the chief officer may decide either to hear the case himself or order the case to be heard by a tribunal consisting of one or more officers not being below the rank of Divisional Officer, Grade III. (2) If the chief officer decides to hear the case himself, he may order an officer or officers of the fire brigade to assist him to hear the case as assossors. (3) The chief officers or officers ordered by him to hear the case are hereafter in these Regulations referred to as the disciplinary tribunal."
The Affidavit of Mr Fry sworn in support of his Application to the Divisional Court shows from paragraph 2: "On the 5th March 1954 I was ordered by Loading Fireman Parker to clean the uniform of Assistant Divisional officer Evans. I considered that this order was not a lawful order, because the orders issued to the said Fire Brigade precludean officer from giving such an order to a fireman and I therefore declined to comply with it. 3. Later the same day I was notified that I had been suspended from duty on half pay because of my notion and I was escorted off the fire station. 4. On the 9th March 1954 I was charged under paragraph 1 (1) of the Fire Brigade (Discipline) Regulations, 1942, with Disobedience to orders in that I on the 5th March 1954 failed to carry out a lawful order given to me to clean tho fire uniform of an officer attached to Station C.I. Pontypridd. I denied the said charge and nominated Loading Fireman Gunter (hereinafter called 'Gunter') as my accused's friend. 5. I appeared with Gunter at the hearing of the case before D.W. Bates the Chief Officer of the said Fire Brigade (hereinafter called 'the Chief Officer') on the 19th March 1954. The hearing was conducted by the chief Officer in such a way that I was denied a fair trial. 6. Divisional Officer Hogg, the complainant, acted ae presenting officer and made a speach opening his case. Before any witnesses were called Gunter said that the proceedings were out of order because I had not been supplied with copies of any report, complaint or other written allegation on which the charge was founded as required by paragraph 2 (2) of the said Regulations. The Chief officer swept this aside without considering it."
It is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Board of Visitors of Hull Prison, ex parte St Germain
...moved the learned Lord Chief Justice was a decision of the Divisional Court, presided over by Lord Goddard, Chief Justice, in the case of Ex parte Fry (1954) 1 Weekly Law Reports 730. With all respect, I think that the criticism made before us of the judgment of Lord Goddard, Chief Justice,......
-
Buckoke v Greater London Council
...order, and the crewman has no sufficient cause for failing to carry it out. 26 The Judge devoted a considerable part of his judgment to Ex Parte Fry (1954 1 W. L. R. 730), but that case was not canvassed before us. It does not warrant the proposition that the rules of natural justice do not......
-
Leech v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison; Prevot v Deputy Governor of Long Lartin Prison
...of those rules donated as part of the formation of the body itself." 18 After referring to a passage from the judgment of Goddard L.J. in Ex parte Fry [1954] 1 W.L.R. 730 Lord Widgery C.J. continued at p. 691: "The principle there that domestic discipline in the form of a discplinary body i......
-
R v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Quintavalle (on behalf of Pro-Life Alliance)
... ... supervise the disciplinary actions of prison governors, chief constables, chief fire officers and the like, because to do so would interfere with the free and proper exercise of their disciplinary powers: see R v Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Ex p Parker [1953] 1 WLR 1150 , 1155, Ex p Fry [1954] 1 WLR 730 , 733, per Goddard LJ. Then it was held that the disciplinary decisions of prison Boards of Visitors could be distinguished from those of prison governors and were amenable to judicial review: see R v Board of Visitors of Hull Prison, Ex p St Germain [1979] 1 QB 425 ... But it ... ...