R v Long
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1959 |
| Date | 1959 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Criminal Law - Sentence - Preventive detention - Notice of intention to prove previous convictions - Service on defendant - Time of service - Meaning of “three days before the trial” - Whether three clear days must elapse -
The appellant was to be sentenced in respect of his breach of a probation order. On July 18 notice was given to him under section 23 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, of intention to prove convictions which would render him liable to a sentence of preventive detention. On July 21 he was brought before the court, when the clerk put the breach of the probation order to the appellant in general terms, asking him only whether he admitted committing a further offence, and he was sentenced to a term of eight years' preventive detention. He appealed:—
Held, that the requirement in section 23 that the notice should be given three days before the trial meant that three clear days must elapse and that, accordingly, the appellant did not qualify for preventive detention and his sentence must be set aside.
Per curiam. The breach alleged must be put to the defendant in the clearest possible terms.
APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE.
On January 27, 1959, the appellant, Dennis John Long, pleaded guilty at Southampton Borough Quarter Sessions to storebreaking and was placed on probation for three years. On May 27, 1959, he was convicted at Grimsby Quarter Sessions of larceny and was sentenced to three years' imprisonment, nine other offences being taken into consideration. He was returned to Southampton Borough Quarter Sessions for the breach of the probation order to be dealt with. On July 18, notice was given to him under section 23 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948,F1 of intention to prove convictions which would render him liable to a sentence of preventive detention. The recorder (Ewen Montagu, Esq., Q.C.) adjourned the trial from July 20, when it was to have taken place, to July 21. The appellant was then sentenced to eight years' preventive detention. He appealed against this sentence on the ground, inter alia, that the notice was not given to him three days before the trial within the meaning of section 23 of the Act.
Patricia Coles for the appellant.
The following case, in addition to those which are referred to in the judgment, was cited in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Forster v Jododex Aust Pty Ltd
-
Schnabel v Allard
...on Friday, 12th June, 1959. The Divisional Court held that that notice was bad. They referred to cases on other statutes, such as Regina v. Long, 1960, 1 Queen's Bench, p. 681 and Re Hector Whaling, 1936 Chancery, p. 208, in which such words as "clear days" or "not less than" so many days ......
-
R Tc Projects Ltd v Newcastle Justices Grosvenor Casinos Ltd and Another (Interested Parties)
...235 under the title, "Period within which an act must be done". See also remarks at the commencement of the judgment of Lord Parker CJ in R v Long [1960] 1 QB 681 at page 683). 29 I therefore hold that the defendant was in error in declaring the proceedings a nullity or finding that they ha......
-
Johnson v. Halifax (City) and Dominix, (1975) 12 N.S.R.(2d) 547 (CA)
...June 12, 1959. The Divisional Court held that that notice was bad. They referred to cases on other statutes, such as R. v. Long, [1959] 3 All E.R. 559; [1960] 1 Q.B. 681 and Re Hector Whaling, Ltd., [1959] All E.R. Rep. 302; [1936] Ch. 208, in which such words as 'clear days' or 'not less t......