Ledwith v. Roberts
| Date | 01 January 1937 |
| Published date | 01 January 1937 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201833700100111 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Ledwith
v.
Roberts
Note.-The
complete judgments in this
case
areprinted at p. 133.
IT
is curious that by far the most important judgment in
recent years on that much discussed section of the Vagrancy
Act of 1824 dealing
with"
Suspected Persons and Reputed
Thieves "should have been given by three Lords Justices in
the Court of Appeal following on a civil action for false
imprisonment.
Since the decision of the Divisional Court consisting of
Lord Reading, Mr. Justice Ridley, and Mr. Justice Avory in
Hartley v. Ellnor
(117
Times Law Reports, 304) in 1917, the
judgment in that case which was delivered by Mr. Justice
Avory has been relied on by the police and followed by
Magistrates almost slavishly.
One Magistrate even carried things so far as to insist upon
evidence of at least 40 minutes' observation in every case,
because" about 40minutes
"was
the period of time mentioned
in Mr. Justice Avory's judgment.
It
is well to remember that in that case the only question
which the Divisional Court was called on to decide was
whetherthe Magistrates were right in coming to the conclusion
that there must be evidence of a previous conviction or of
previous bad character in order to render the individual
a " suspected person "within the meaning of the section of the
Statute under which proceedings were taken.
The
wording of the section of the Vagrancy Act referred
to is as follows
:-
"
...
every suspected person or reputed thief, frequenting any
river, canal or navigable stream, dock or basin or any quay, wharf
or warehouse near or adjoining thereto or any street, highway or
avenue leading thereto or any place of public resort, or any avenue
122
To continue reading
Request your trial