House of Lords
| Published date | 01 May 1992 |
| Date | 01 May 1992 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201839205600203 |
| Published By | Sage Publications, Inc. |
| Subject Matter | House of Lords |
HOUSE
OF
LORDS
DIVISIONAL
COURTS
POWER
TO
ORDER
ARE-HEARING
Griffith v Jenkins and another
Although the appeal in Griffith v Jenkins and another (1991) 156 JP 29, 53
arose out of allegations of fivefishing offences which Lord Bridge described
as 'relatively trivial', it raised an important question as to the power of
the High Court hearing an appeal by way of case stated from the magistrates'
court. The justices, apparently being uncertain of the identification of
one
of the defendants and being of opinion that there was no cogent
evidence of a joint enterprise, retired without inviting representations from
the parties or informing them of the reason for their retirement, and
returned to court to announce that they found that the defendants had no
case to answer and they dismissed the informations. On appeal by way of
case stated, however, the Divisional Court quashed that decision, on the
ground that there was cogent evidence sufficient to make aprima facie
case against both defendants. The justices were therefore not only wrong
in finding no case to answer, but also erred in dismissing the case without
inviting representations from both sides. They appear to have confused
the question whether there was a prima facie case with the question
whether they were sure that the offence had been committed. In the
normal way, the court would have remitted the case to the original bench
of magistrates to continue the hearing. Two of the adjudicating justices
had, however, retired in the meantime, so the question arose whether the
court had the power to
order
aretrial before adifferent bench, which is
what the appellant invited them to do. The court was of the opinion that
the terms of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1857 s 6, as amended, are in
themselves wide enough to give the court power to
order
aretrial, since
s 6 provides that it shall hear and determine questions of law arising out
of the case stated and shall reverse, approve or amend the decision of the
court below or remit the matter to that court with its opinion thereon
'or
may make any
other
order
in relation to the matter
...
as the court may
see fit'. McCullough J said (at p 33F) that he thought that
'on
their face,
those are wide words and wide enough so to empower the court'.
But
the
court
decided, however,
that
it was
bound
by two earlier decisions to
hold
that
it had no
power
to
order
aretrial
under
s 6. An early decision
in Shackell v West (1859) 2 E &E 326 was indecisive on this particular
question,
for, although all
three
judges agreed to
'remit'
the
case to the
justices, only
one
used
the
terms
'remit
...
to be
re-heard'.
In Rigby v
Woodward [1975] 1
WLR
250, however, Lord
Goddard
CJ
stated
categorically
that
'there
is no power to
order
aretrial in the ordinary
sense of
that
expression'.
The
court
therefore
concluded in
that
case
that
it could
neither
order
the
justices to continue the hearing
(for
the
co-defendant
had
disappeared)
nor
tell the justices to scrap
the
hearing
and
start
again. Afortiorari,
the
court in
the
present
case could
not
165
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting