R v East Riding of Yorkshire Quarter Sessions, ex parte Newton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE WINN,THE MASTER of THE ROLLS |
| Judgment Date | 04 July 1967 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1967] EWCA Civ J0704-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 04 July 1967 |
[1967] EWCA Civ J0704-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Civil Division
From the Divisional Court Queen's Bench Division
The Master of the Rolls (Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Winn and
Mr Justice Baker
MR G. H. NEWSOM, Q. C. and MR C. N. GLIDEWELL (instructed by Messrs Collyer-Bristow & Co., Agents for Messrs Payne & Payne, Hull) appeared as Counsel for the Appellant (Respondent).
MR PAUL WRIGHTSON, Q. C. and MR R. R. RAWDEN-SMITH (instructed by Messrs C. Grobel Son & Co., Agents for Messrs Williamsons, Hull) appeared as Counsel for the Respondents (Applicants).
Mr Farmer has a hotel called the Hotel Eden at Willerby in the East Riding of Yorkshire. He has had a public music, singing and dancing licence. On the 9th February of this year he asked the Licensing Justices to renew that licence. They refused his application. He wished to query their decision. So he appealed to the Court of Quarter Sessions, At that Court a question arose as to whether there was any jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The Chairman, Mr Henry Scott, Q. C. and his fellow Justices at Quarter Sessions had it fully argued. They followed a recent decision on a related point before the Lord Chief Justice and his colleagues, Jeffrey v. Evans in 1964. They held that they had jurisdiction to entertain Mr Farmer's appeal.
Thereupon the Licensing Justices themselves moved the High Court here for a prerogative writ of prohibition ordering Quarter Sessions not to hear Mr Farmer's appeal. The Divisional Court, with the greatest reluctance, felt compelled, by reason of a decision of the House of Lords, Boulter v. Kent Justices, 1897 Appeal Cases, p. 556, to hold that there was no jurisdiction in Quarter Sessions to entertain the appeal.
This question has involved a considerable investigation of the statutes. The power to grant a music, singing and dancing licence was given by the Public Health Acts (Amendment) Act, 1890, Section 51. It gives jurisdiction to the Licensing Justices sitting at their general annual licensing meeting to grant not only liquor licences, as they do, but also special music, singing and dancing licences. There has always been by statute an appeal from their decision on liquor licensing matters. But it is said that there is not an appeal from their decisions on music, singing and dancing licences.
The right of appeal, if it is given at all, must be found in Section 301 of the Public Health Act, 1936, which is to be read as one with all the long series of Public Health Acts. It says that: "Where a person aggrieved by any order, determinationor other decision of a court of summary jurisdiction under this Act is not by any other enactment authorised to appeal to a court of quarter sessions, he may appeal to such a court". That section clearly gives a right of appeal provided always that the Licensing Justices are a "court".
That brings me to the Magistrates Courts Act 1952. By Section 124 it is said; "In this Act the expression 'magistrates court' means any justice or justices of the peace acting under any enactment or by virtue of his or her commission or under the common law". Reading those words by themselves in this statute, I am clearly of opinion that they cover Licensing Justices acting under the music, singing and dancing licensing provisions in the 1890 Act. They are "justices of the peace acting under any enactment or by virtue of his or her commission".
In the recent case of Jeffrey v. Evans, 1964, 1 Weekly Law Reports, p. 505, the Lord Chief Justice sitting as a Divisional Court with Mr Justice Widgery and Mr Justice Paull so held. They had there a case from Licensing Justices dealing with music and dancing. They held that there was jurisdiction in such Justices to state a case under Section 87 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1952 which depends on the self-same point. Section 87 says: "Any person who was a party to any proceeding before a magistrates' court or is aggrieved by the conviction, order, determination or other proceeding of the court may question the proceeding on the ground that it is wrong in law…,by applying" for a case stated. So the Lord Chief Justice and his colleagues have held that that new section in the MagistratesCourts Act, 1952, is wide enough to cover Licenes Justices when they sit to grant music, singing and dancing licences.
If that decision is right, it seems to me that that applies not only to a case stated on a point of law but also an appeal to Quarter Sessions under the 1936 Act, I say "if" Jeffrey v. Evans is rightly decided. That is the real point in this case. It was submitted to us by Mr Wrightson that Jeffrey v. Evans itself was wrongly decided. He said that there is no jurisdiction in Licensing Justices in connection with music, singing and dancing licences to state a case: nor is there any appeal to Quarter Sessions. He says that is the result of Boulter v. Kent Justices, 1958 Appeal Cases, p. 556. That was the case of an ordinary liquor licence. There was an appeal to Quarter Sessions. The Court of Quarter Sessions ordered the objector to pay the costs. The question was whether the Court of Quarter Sessions had jurisdiction to order the objector to pay -the costs. The House of Lords held they had no jurisdiction. That case depended entirely on the true application to it of Section 31 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879 which laid down the procedure for appeals from - and these are the important words - " a conviction or order of a court of summary jurisdiction". At that time the words "court of summary jurisdiction" were defined in Section 13(11) of the Interpretation Act 1889, which is substantially the same as the definition in the Magistrates Courts Act 1952" The House of Lords held that 1he refusal or grant of a licences was not a conviction or order. That was the basis of Lord Herschell's decision. It was an, influencing factor in Lord Halsbury's decision. He said: "The distinction I am insisting on is only consistent with the language of the Summary Jurisdiction Act itself. Speaking of the appeal, the appeal is to be 'from a conviction or order', words perfectly familiar to every person acquainted with the procedure of the courts in question, wholly inapplicable as it appears to me to the decision of justicesat a licensing meeting".
In my opinion Boulter v. Kent Justices was a decision on the interpretation of the words "conviction or order of a court of summary jurisdiction". Those words in Section 31 have since been altered in a most material manner. In the Summary Jurisdiction (Appeals) Act 1933, Section 31 was substituted by a like section but instead of it being "conviction or order", the words are "appeal against a conviction, sentence, order, determination or other decision of a court of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atkinson v United States
...1 Q.B. 458, C.A. Pratt v. A.A. Sites Ltd. [1938] 2 All E.R. 371, D.C. Reg. v. East Riding of Yorkshire Quarter Sessions, Ex parte Newton[1968] 1 Q.B. 32; [1967] 3 W.L.R. 1098; [1967] 3 All E.R. 118, C.A. Reg. v. Glamorganshire Justices [1892] 1 Q.B. 621, C.A. Reg. v. Governor of Brixton Pri......
- Metropolitan Health Services Board v Australian Nursing Federation