Hooper v United Kingdom (42317/98); R v Clerkenwell Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate ex parte Hooper
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 January 1998 |
| Date | 20 January 1998 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Divisional Court
Before Lord Justice Simon Brown and Mr Justice Mance
Criminal procedure - requirement to provide surety - magistrate should hear representations
Where a magistrate was considering binding over a defendant to keep the peace and be of good behaviour following a disturbance in the court, and contemplated requiring the defendant not only to enter into his own recognisance for £50, but also to provide a surety in the sum of £250 with an alternative period of imprisonment in lieu, he had to give the defendant or his legal representative an opportunity to address him as to the proposed conditions before making the order.
The Queen's Bench Divisional Court so held when granting an application by the applicant, Mr Ivan Hooper, for judicial review of the decision of Mr M Johnstone, stipendiary magistrate sitting at Clerkenwell Magistrates' Court on January 3, 1997, ordering him to be bound over to keep the peace under the Justice of the Peace Act 1361.
The applicant, represented by the duty solicitor, appeared before the magistrate in custody on a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and an offence under the Bail Act 1976.
The magistrate found the bail offence proved, adjourned the assault charge for 28 days and referred to the possibility of granting bail on the condition that the applicant resided at a bail hostel.
The applicant reacted adversely to that suggestion and behaved in a disruptive manner in the face of the court. The magistrate thereupon bound the applicant over in his own recognisance of £50, together with a surety of £250.
Although there was some discrepancy in the court records, the application proceeded on the assumption that the bind over was for 28 days, with a period of 28 days imprisonment in default of the conditions being met.
The magistrate did not ask for the applicant's consent to the order nor did he invite or give the applicant or his solicitor the opportunity of addressing him on the terms of the order.
A friend of the applicant who was present at court agreed to act as a surety but later the same day, in the absence of the applicant and his solicitor, the magistrate found him to be unsuitable. The applicant remained in custody until January 16, 1997.
Mr Leon Daniel for the applicant; Mr Ian Burnett for the magistrate.
MR JUSTICE MANCE said that there was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Secretary of State for the Home Department v BM
...conclusively by the case of Metropolitan Police Commissioner v Hooper (2005) EWHC 340 (Admin) (2005) 4 All E R 1095 (2005) 1 WLR 1995 (2005) 169 JP 409. The judgment in this case clearly states that an application for a closure order should be classified as civil proceedings since there is ......
-
R (Errington) v Metropolitan Police Authority
... ... Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police v Hooper [2005] 4 All ER 1095.) ... 11 ... , for example, R v Rochford Justices, ex parte Buck ). The court must decide all issues whether ... ...
- R (on the Application of Taylor) v Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police