Local Connection and Disconnection: R v Newham London Borough Council, ex parte Tower Hamlets London Borough Council
| Date | 01 March 1993 |
| Published date | 01 March 1993 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1993.tb00957.x |
| Author | David S. Cowan |
The Modern Law Review
[Vol.
56
Commission Draft Code.” Such a formulation would entail, as a consequence, a
minute examination of proposed offences to determine what the fault state should
be. The latter is illustrated by the drafting formula employed in respect of dangerous
driving under section
1
of the Road Traffic Act
1988.
In particular, it can no longer
be assumed that offences of homicide, as a matter of policy, must be offences of
advertence only.
If this challenge is not met, any proposed measure could encounter difficulties
in
Parliament. The challenge for the reformers is not to exclude inadvertence as
a fault state in the criminal law, but to domesticate it. That is likely to be a task
of some magnitude.
Local Connection and Disconnection:
R
v
Newham
London
Borough
Council,
ex parte Tower Hamlets
London
Borough
Council
David
S.
Cowan
*
Under the Housing Act
1985,
Part
111,
a local authority is permitted to refer its
obligation to provide permanent accommodation for an applicant to another local
authority. The referral procedure has caused some undignified disputes between
local authorities2 and the recent case of
R
v
Newham
London
Borough
Council,
ex
parte Tower Hamlets
London
Borough
Council3
proved no different. Therefore,
in
Newham,
the Court of Appeal made some important comments upon the nature
of a local authority’s obligations when considering a second application under the
Act and upon the structure of the Act itself. The Court also renewed its earlier
criticism of the referral procedure.*
The
Background
Rashid Ullah returned to this country from his native Bangladesh, where he owned
a property made out of corrugated iron and with no facilities, with his wife and
three children. He stayed with a member of his family in Tower Hamlets but had
to leave because of overcrowding. Tower Hamlets turned down his application for
permanent accommodation because it found that, although he was homeless and
had a priority need,’ he had become homeless intentionally. Under the Housing
57
The Law Commission (Law Comm
No
143),
Codwcation
of
rhe Criminal Law,
Draft Code, cl
22(a);
in Law Comm
No
177,
A
Criminal Code for England and Wales,
HC
1989,
No
299,
vols
1
and
2,
this was essentially dropped because the Law Commission could see no need for
it
in the offences
as specified by them in Part
11.
This will have to be reconsidered.
*Lecturer in Law, University of Southampton.
Dedicated
to
A.C.
1
Housing Act
1985,
ss
67-68.
2
For
example,
R
v
Slough
BC,
exp
Ealing
LBC
[
19811
1
QB
801
;
and
R
v
Tower Hamlets
LBC,
ex p
Camden
LBC
(1989) 21
HLR
197.
3
[1992]
2
All ER
767.
4
R
v
Slough
BC,
exp
Euling
LBC
[1981]
1
QB
801.
5
The findings of homelessness and priority need were uncontroversial, as the facts clearly fit within
the
relevant sections of the Act
(s
58
-
homelessness,
s
59
-
priority need).
218
0
The Modern Law Review Limited
1993
To continue reading
Request your trial