R v Leyland Justices, ex parte Hawthorn
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1979 |
| Date | 1979 |
| Court | Divisional Court |
Crown Practice - Certiorari - Inferior tribunal - Magistrates' court - Summary trial for careless driving - Prosecutor failing to disclose witnesses' statements or call witnesses - Whether denial of natural justice - Whether certiorari available to ash conviction
The applicant was the driver of a car which collided with another car being driven in the opposite direction. Two witnesses gave statements to the police, but those statements were not disclosed to the applicant, who did not know of the existence of the witnesses. He was charged with driving without due care and attention, contrary to section 3 of the
On an application for an order of certiorari to quash the conviction: —
Held, granting the application, that where there was a clear denial of natural justice to a defendant which had deprived him of a fair trial, certiorari was an appropriate remedy even when it was the prosecution and not the tribunal which had erred by failing to observe the rules of natural justice that, accordingly, when a defendant was deprived of the elementary right to be notified of material witnesses known to the police, certiorari should go to quash the subsequent conviction (post, p. 30E, F).
The following case is referred to in the judgment:
Reg. v. West Sussex Quarter Sessions, Ex parte Albert and Maud Johnson Trust Ltd. [
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Dallison v. Caffery [
Reg. v. Gillyard (
Rex v. Bryant (
Reg v. Recorder of Leicester, Ex parte Wood [
APPLICATION for order of certiorari.
The applicant, Paul Robert Hawthorn, sought an order of certiorari to quash his conviction on March 16, 1977, at Leyland Magistrates' Court of driving without due care and attention, contrary to section 3 of the
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Rohana bte Ariffin & Hashim Yaacob v Universiti Sains Malaysia, HC
- Adrian-Christian Luis v Tenaga Nasional Bhd
-
Shabalala and Others v Attorney-General, Transvaal, and Another
...613 R v Egger 103 DLR (4th) 678 R v H 1952 (4) SA 344 (T) H R v Keane [1994] 2 All ER 478 R v Leyland Magistrates, Ex parte Hawthorn [1979] 1 All ER 209 (QB) R v Maguire and Others [1992] 2 All ER 433 (CA) R v Moyage 1958 (3) SA 400 (A) R v Steyn 1954 (1) SA 324 (A) R v Stinchcombe (1992) 6......
-
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Al-Mehdawi
...natural justice could not be confined to errors on the part of the decision making body, is Reg, v. Leyland Justices, Ex parte Hawthorn [1979] Q.B. 283. In that case the driver of one of two cars involved in a collision had been prosecuted and convicted for driving without due care and att......
-
Divisional Court
...trial withinthelawcould havetakenplace wheretherehadbeennon-disclosure of materialdiscrepancies. Thus, in R v Leyland JJ, ex pHawthorn [1979] 2WLR28,for example,theprosecution's failure to give the defencethenames oftwo witnesses whom it didnotintend to call,butwhose statements mighthave he......
-
Is there a right to pre-trial disclosure in West Indian constitutional law?
...by failing to observe the rules of natural justice; that, accordingly, when a defendant was deprived of the elementary right to 27 [1979] 2 W.L.R. 28. be notified of material witnesses known to the police, certiorari should go to quash the subsequent conviction. Lord Widgery C.J. explained ......
-
House of Lords
...namely a decision obtained by237 JournalofCriminalLawfraud, collusion or perjured evidence. In R. v. Leyland Justices,ex p. Hawthorn[1979]Q.B. 283, certiorari was granted to quasha conviction obtained following a breach of duty owed by theprosecutor, both to the court and to the defendant, ......