Quarterly Summary
| DOI | 10.1177/002201835602000111 |
| Date | 01 January 1956 |
| Published date | 01 January 1956 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Quarterly
Summary
(Extended reports
of
some
of
the caseshere summarised will be given in
our next
issue.-Ed.)
SCOPE OF CERTIORARI
R.
'V. Ashford, Kent,
JJ.,
Ex
p. Richley
(No.2)
In
this appeal to the Court of Appeal in an affiliation case
against the refusal by the Divisional Court to issue an order
of certiorari to bring up and quash an order of the justices
some observations were made on the scope and nature of
certiorari proceedings in general. Parker
L.J.
said that it is
important to remember that the supervisory jurisdiction of
the High Court, exercised originally by way of a writ of
certiorari and now by an order of certiorari, does not extend
to the curing of all alleged irregularities in an inferior court.
In
general, this valuable jurisdiction is exercised along well-
defined lines, such as lack of jurisdiction and matters akin to
lack of jurisdiction and errors of law appearing on the fact
of the record.
The
one thing, however, that must be borne
in mind, added Parker
L.J.,
is that the jurisdiction is never
exercised by way of appeal. At the same time, it has for long
been recognized that it is a ground for quashing the decision
of an inferior court if the decision has been obtained by the
fraud or the perjured evidence of the person invoking the
jurisdiction of the court.
It
may extend also to perjury
committed by the other party
but
it is clear that there is no
case in which certiorari has lain where the fraud or perjured
evidence is that of a witness called by one of the parties,
unless it is also shown that that perjured evidence was given
in collusion with one of the parties.
The
appeal was dismissed
and leave was refused to appeal further to the House of Lords
(1955, 3 W.L.R. 778).
To continue reading
Request your trial