R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1923 |
| Date | 1923 |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
Justices - Possibility of Bias - Justices' Clerk present as Justices' Consultation - Justices' Clerk interested professionally in Civil Proceedings arising out of Subject Matter of Complaint.
Arising out of a collision between a motor vehicle belonging to the applicant and one belonging to W., a summons was taken out by the police against the applicant for having driven his motor vehicle in a manner dangerous to the public. At the hearing of the summons the acting clerk to the justices was a member of the firm of solicitors who were acting for W. in a claim for damages against the applicant for injuries received in the collision. At the conclusion of the evidence the justices retired to consider their decision, the acting clerk retiring with them in case they should desire to be advised on any point of law. The justices convicted the applicant, and it was stated on affidavit that they came to that conclusion without consulting the acting clerk, who in fact abstained from referring to the case:—
Held, that the conviction must be quashed, as it was improper for the acting clerk, having regard to his firm's relation to the case, to be present with the justices when they were considering their decision.
RULE NISI for a writ of certiorari to bring up, for the purpose of being quashed, a conviction of McCarthy, the applicant for the rule, for having driven a motor car on a certain highway in a manner which was dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
On August 21, 1923, a collision took place between a motor cycle driven by the applicant and a motor cycle and side-car driven by one Whitworth, and it was alleged that the latter and his wife sustained injuries in the collision. In respect of those injuries Messrs. Langham, Son & Douglas, solicitors, Hastings, by a letter dated August 28, 1923, made a claim on behalf of Whitworth against the applicant for damages, and the police, after making inquiries into the circumstances of the collision, applied for and obtained a summons against the applicant for driving his motor cycle in a manner dangerous to the public. At the hearing of that summons on September 22, 1923, the applicant's solicitor, who stated in his affidavit that he had no knowledge of the officials of the court, inquired whether Mr. F. G. Langham, the clerk to the justices and a member of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
ASM Shipping Ltd of India v Harris and Others
...Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 2)ELR[2000] AC 119. R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthyELR[1924] 1 KB 256. Rustal Trading Ltd v Gill & Duffus SA [2000] CLC 231. Arbitration — Shipping — Removal of arbitrator — Reference to three arbitrators of di......
- Vereker & Forsyth v Rodda
- Rohana bte Ariffin & Hashim Yaacob v Universiti Sains Malaysia, HC
- Ah Poon v Public Prosecutor
-
Dealing with disgruntled students: a fine balancing act for educational institutions - part 1
...requires, in essence, that "justice must both be done and be seen to be done". (In the case of R v Sussex Justices: Ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1KB 256 at 259, Lord Hewart CJ emphasised the importance of procedural conduct in maintaining confidence.) It is the concern to avoid a practical inju......
-
COVID-19 Update: Litigation, Incarceration, and Investigation in the Time of COVID-19
...release without exhaustion to Michael Cohen and “Real Housewife” star Brynee Baylor. 53 R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER Rep 233). 54 Section 53(1) of Criminal Justice Act 2003 states that “The court may sit for the purposes of the whole or any part of ......
-
Ex Parte Communications In Arbitral Proceedings - Worth The Risk?: Hunt v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 2556
...676 at 681 (BCCA). 5 Hunt, supra at para 82; Strata Plan VR 2733 v Jensen, 2000 BCSC 1489 at para 19, citing The King v Sussex Justices, [1924] 1 KB 256 at To view the original article click here The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Speci......
-
Apprehended Bias And Adjudication Determinations
...which provides that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly be seen to be done (R v Sussex Justices; Ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256). In the adjudication process, would mean that the adjudicator should not only make the correct decision, but should also not engage in any s......
-
Preliminary Sections
...v. Sola Sati (1938) 3 WACA 10 599 Rex v. Sunderland Justices (1901) 2 K.B. 357 at 373 C.A. 64 Rex v. Sussex Justice Ex parte McCarthy (1924) 1 K.B. 256 at 259. 64 Roberts v. Holland (1893) 1 0 B 665 495 Robinson v. Chadwick (1887-8) 7 Ch. 878. 680 Royal British Bank v. Turquand (1856) 6 E &......
-
Notes
...telling the truth is not supported by the scientiic evidence” (at 408). 52 Snook et al, above note 31 at 306. 53 R v Sussex Justices , [1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER Rep 233. 54 Judicial Studies Board, above note 9 at 3-18/2. 55 Homa Hoodfar, “The Veil in Their Minds and on Our Heads: The P......
-
2018 index
...94R v Gomez [1993] AC 442 (HL) ........................................................... 395R v Sussex Justices (1924) 1 KB 256 ................................................... 430Schumann [2007] 2 Cr App R (S) 465 .................................................. 285United StatesTran......
-
2017 index
...94R v Gomez [1993] AC 442 (HL) ........................................................... 395R v Sussex Justices (1924) 1 KB 256 ................................................... 430Schumann [2007] 2 Cr App R (S) 465 .................................................. 285United StatesTran......