R v Thames Magistrates' Court, ex parte Polemis
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1974 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Natural Justice - Adjournment, refusal of - Criminal charge - No opportunity to collect evidence and prepare defence - Application for adjournment refused - Whether defendant deprived of opportunity to present case - Whether justices' refusal to grant adjournment ground for exercising discretion to grant order of certiorari
The applicant was the master of a Greek vessel which berthed in the West India Dock, London. Subsequently, while so berthed, a patch of oil was seen on the water near the ship and it was suspected that the oil had been discharged from the ship. At about 10.30 a.m. on the day on which she was due to sail, the applicant was summoned to appear at the Thames Magistrates' Court at 2 p.m. to answer an information alleging that he was the master of a vessel from which oil or a mixture containing oil was discharged into navigable waters, namely, West India Dock waters, contrary to section 2 (1) (a) of the
On an application for an order of certiorari to quash the magistrate's decision on the ground that the refusal of his application for an adjournment was a denial of reasonable opportunity to prepare his defence and therefore a breach of the rules of natural justice: —
Held, granting the application, (1) that the applicant had been deprived of the opportunity to present his case in that he had been given no reasonable opportunity to prepare his case before the hearing, and in those circumstances there had been a denial of natural justice (post, p. 1375A–D).
(2) That where the central allegation on which an order of certiorari was sought was that the defendant was not given a reasonable time to prepare his case, the mere fact that the matter became apparent as a result of a refusal of an adjournment would not prevent the court from treating the basic cause of complaint as a ground on which certiorari would go and, accordingly, there would be an order for certiorari and the conviction would be quashed (post, p. 1377C–D).
Per curiam. If justices cannot conduct a trial in accordance with the rules of natural justice before a ship sails, then they must adjourn the matter, but they have adequate powers to see that some provision is made whereby there would be some security for the appropriate penalty in the event of a subsequent conviction (post, p. 1378A).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment:
Ekins, In re (
Local Government Board v. Arlidge [
Rex (Harrington) v. Clare Justices [
No additional case was cited in argument.
APPLICATION for an order of certiorari.
On July 11, 1973, the applicant, Andreas Polemis, a Greek national, was convicted by the stipendiary magistrate (Mr. Fenner) at the Thames Magistrates' Court of an offence under section 2 (1) (a) of the
The applicant applied for an order of certiorari to quash the stipendiary magistrate's orders on the grounds, inter alia, that the summons alleging the offence, which summoned him to appear at the Thames Magistrates' Court at 2 p.m. on July 11, 1973, was served on him at 10.30 a. m. on the same day; that the offence alleged was a serious one punishable with a maximum fine of £50,000 and the issues material to the court's decision involved scientific evidence as to samples, and evidence from a number of witnesses as to fact; that by refusing his application for adjournment, he was afforded no reasonable opportunity to obtain and call witnesses on his behalf or otherwise to prepare or present his defence to the offence with which he was charged; and that in all the circumstances he was greatly prejudiced and there was a denial of natural justice.
The respondents, the Port of London Authority, contended, inter alia, that the application was misconceived in law as it purported to be in respect of an order of the stipendiary magistrate of the Thames Magistrates' Court (Mr. Fenner) although the application for adjournment was not heard by that magistrate but by the lay justices and that granting of an adjournment was essentially a matter for the discretion of the court and certiorari would not lie if there was evidence to support the court's decision.
The facts are stated in the judgment of Lord Widgery C.J.
Conrad Dehn Q.C. and Mark Potter for the applicant.
Alan Campbell Q.C. and Ami Feder for the respondents.
LORD WIDGERY C.J. In these proceedings Mr. Dehn moves on behalf of one Andreas Polemis for an order of certiorari to bring up into this court with a view to its being quashed an order made by the Thames Magistrates' Court on July 11, 1973, whereby it was adjudged that the applicant was guilty of the following offence, namely, that on July 9, 1973, at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Manokaran and Another v PP
- H Chamras Tasaso; PP
-
Porter (Ralph) v The Jamaica Racing Commission
...process which would have culminated in a hearing if the result of the second test also returned a positive result. 99 R v Thames Magistrates' Court, ex parte Polemis [1974] 2 All E.R. 1219, is a case where the applicant moved the court for an order of certiorari to quash a conviction on th......
-
An Application by John West Managing Director of TMM (St. Vincent) Ltd T/A TMM Yacht Charters for Leave for Judicial Review v an Application by John West the Managing Director of TMM (St. Vincent) Ltd T/A TMM Yacht Charters for Judicial Review of a Severance Payment Order made by the Hearing Officer of the Labour Commission on 4th July 2013 [ECSC]
...Court in its exercise of discretion would consider that reason in terms of time and delay. Counsel presented the case of R v THAMES MAGISTRATES' COURT EX PARTE POLEMIS [1974] 2 AER 1219at page 1223 as authority for saying so. 22 With respect to Illegality and Irrationality, Counsel reiterat......
-
Her treatment at and around the meeting was deplorable: might safeguarding itself constitute abuse?
...2278 (Fam).Rv. Board of Visitors of Hull Prison, ex parte St Germain [1979] 1 WLR 1401.Rv. Thames Magistrates Court, ex parte Polemis [1974] 1 WLR 1371.The London Borough of Hillingdon v. Steven Neary, Mark Neary and The Equality and Human RightsCommission [2011] EWHC 1377 (COP).Further rea......