Funding Legal Representation of Police Officers
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201839906300513 |
| Published date | 01 October 1999 |
| Date | 01 October 1999 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The Journal
of
Criminal
Law
that
order may be made in
the
absence of any formal order of convic-
tion,
the
magistrate
must
have been satisfied
that
the
alleged wrong-
ful acts have been committed. Looking at the practical aspect of
the
situation, the court remarked that it was certainly in the public interest
that
the
magistrate should have the
power
to correct
any
error of fact,
such as
that
the
defendant was
not
mentally ill or impaired, or
had
not
committed the wrongful acts or
where
no arrangements had been made
to receive
him
into hospital. In such a case, it was essential
that
the
magistrate should have power to make
an
order which would make for
the
safety both of the defendant and of
the
public.
2. The court held that there was no warrant for treating s 142 of the
1980 Act as being confined to minor procedural errors. Any order made
by a magistrate may be varied or rescinded
under
the section as
the
magistrate thinks fit in the interests of justice so to do, for whatever
reasons.
3. As to
the
operation of the custody time limits (which were said to
have
run
out
before the second order was made, thus rendering it
unlawful), s22(l1B) of the Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985 states
that
a trial may begin
when
the court begins to consider its powers
under
s 37(3) of
the
1983 Act. And s 22( 11) of
the
1985 Act states
that
the
'preliminary stages' (to which
the
custody time limits apply) do
not
include
any
stage of
the
trial. Unless it is arguable
that
an order which
after it has been made is shown to be inoperable
must
thereupon
be
regarded as no order at all, an argument based on custody time limits
must
be regarded as irrelevant to the present circumstances.
If
a magis-
trate has begun to consider the possibility of
the
making of a hospital
order,
the
fact
that
it later transpired that
the
order could
not
lawfully be
made (since no arrangement for the reception of
the
patient could
be made) could
not
affect the date on which
the
magistrate began to
consider
the
matter. As
the
trial
then
began, custody time limits could no
longer apply.
Funding
Legal Representation of Police Officers
Rv
DPP,
ex p
Duckenjield
[1999] 2 All ER 873
The public inquiry into
the
Hillsborough disaster in which 96 people lost
their lives reported
that
this was primarily
due
to
the
overcrowding of
the
football stadium,
but
it also found
that
the
defects in the police
planning operation contributed to
the
disaster. On further inquiry,
however,
the
Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)
announced
that
there was insufficient evidence to justify proceedings of a criminal
nature
against any member of the police force. Private prosecutions
were
then
brought against two police officers (by then, retired) charging
them
with manslaughter and neglect of public duty. The defendants
asked
the
DPP to take over
the
prosecution
with
a view to discontinuing
it,
but
this was refused. The two officers
thereupon
applied for judicial
review of
that
decision. The South Yorkshire Police Authority
(SYPA)
414
To continue reading
Request your trial