R v Uxbridge Justices, ex parte Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,SIR GEORGE BAKER,SIR STANLEY REES,of |
| Judgment Date | 12 June 1981 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1981] EWCA Civ J0612-3 |
| Docket Number | 81/0256 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 12 June 1981 |
[1981] EWCA Civ J0612-3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL DIVISION
On Appeal from the Divisional Court
(Donaldson, L.J. and Kilner Brown, J.)
Royal Courts of Justice
The Master of the Rolls
(Lord Denning)
Sir George Baker
Sir Stanley Rees
81/0256
MR. A. RAWLEY, Q.C. and MR. SLEEMAN (instructed by The Solicitor, Metropolitan Police) appeared on behalf of the Applicant/Appellant.
MR. J. LOYD, Q.C. and MR. M. HARRINGTON (instructed by Messrs. Edward Mackie & Co. of Uxbridge) appeared on behalf of the Respondent/Respondent.
This case raises a dry point of law about the meaning of the word "complaint" in an Act of Parliament. But dry points of law can be illuminated by the facts which give rise to them. So I will tell the story behind it all.
The stolen currency notes
Sukh Deo Prasad was a frequenter of Heathrow Airport. He got into touch with thieves. They stole currency notes from the wallets or packages of travellers. They handed them to Mr. Prasad. He dishonestly received them and gave the thieves a reward. The Police kept watch on him. They arrested him and found a lot of currency notes on him. They suspected that the currency notes had been stolen. They charged him with dishonestly handling stolen currency notes and with corruption.
They went to his house and found there quite a hoard of currency notes of all kinds. Worth over £1,000. This is what they found:
| 12 | £5 | Bank of England notes |
| 92 | £10 | Bank of England notes |
| 67 | £1 | Bank of England notes |
| 4 | £5 | Bank of Clydesdale notes |
| 3 | US | 10 dollar notes |
| 1 | US | 5 dollar note |
| 27 | US | 1 dollar notes |
| 2 | 10 | dollar Fijian notes |
| 5 | 5 | dollar Fijian notes |
| 3 | 2 | dollar Fijian notes |
| 2 | 1 | dollar Fijian notes |
Those currency notes—coming as they did from countries far and wide—aroused the suspicions of the Police. Very reasonably. It looked very much as if they also had been stolen from travellers. So the Police took possession of them as they were entitled by law to do, pending further investigation—see Chic fashions [1968] 2 Q.B.299.
The Trial
In May, 1978 Mr. Prasad was tried at Reading Crown Court in respect of the stolen currency notes found on him. He was convicted on six counts of dishonestly handling stolen currency and one count of corruption. He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.
At the trial the Judge was satisfied that the currency notes found on him were stolen property which had been used to facilitate the offence. So he made an order under Section 43 (3) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act, 1973 depriving Mr. Prasad of any right to them.
Mr. Prasad's Counsel then applied to the Judge for the currency notes which were found in the house to be given to him. He said that they belonged to Mr. Prasad and that there was no proof that they had been stolen. He suggested that Mr. Prasad might have come by them quite honestly—as, for instance, savings from his wages or gifts by travellers.
The Judge took the usual course in such cases. He refused to make an order for the currency notes to be returned to Mr. Prasad. He said that if Mr. Prasad wished to claim these currency notes he should apply to the appropriate Magistrates' Court under the provisions of the Police (Property) Act, 1897. That is a procedure which is available in straightforward simple cases where there is no difficulty of lav and the matter is clear, see Lyons -v- Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1975] 1 Q.B.321. It is a very necessary procedure for the protection of the Police. If these currency notes were stolen property—and the Police had handed them over to Mr. Prasad without a Court order—the true owners could have come down on the Police for conversion and damages. So it was absolutely essential that Mr. Prasad should get a Court order in his favour.
Mr. Prasad's lawyers followed the advice of the Judge. They laid claim to the currency. On 17th November, 1978 they applied to the Uxbridge Magistrates' Court under Section 1 (1) of the Police (Property) Act, 1897 as amended by the Theft Act, 1968 and the Criminal Justice Act, 1972. It says:
"Where any property has come into the possession of the Police in connexion with their investigation of a suspected offence…a court of summary jurisdiction may, on application either by an officer of Police or by a claimant of the property. make an order for the delivery of the property to the person appearing to the magistrate or court to be the owner thereof, or, if the owner cannot be ascertained, make such order with respect to the property as to the magistrate or court may seem meet."
I have underlined the words " on application either by an officer of Police or by a claimant of the property": because in this case the lawyers for Mr. Prasad went to the Clerk to the Magistrates and got a form of application for making a complaint, as distinct from an application. It was not an appropriate form because they had to leave some spaces blank. Particularly the spaces for inserting "against" who the complaint was made and "for" what cause were not filled in. They were left blank. The lawyers adapted it so that it read as follows:
"In the Middlesex Commission Area of Greater London
Petty Sessional Division of Uxbridge
TO: Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis,
Prisoner's Property Office,
Unit 6,
Cricklewood Trading Estate,
Claremont Road,
London N.W. 2. 1 SY.
(Ref. L. 78/2697/RAD)
COMPLAINANT
Sukh Deoprasad
Address
House Block One, H.M.P. The Verne, Portland, Dorset 0T5 1EQ, formerly of 29 Leamington Road, Southall, Middlesex
Who states that
certain property
namely
See Schedule overleaf has come into the possession of the Metropolitan Police in connection with the investigation of a criminal offence
against
[left blank]
for
[left blank]
Wherefore the said complainant applies for the delivery of the said property to him, he being the owner thereof (or for the disposal of the said property)
Pursuant to the Police (Property) Act, 1897.
Above are particulars of a complaint which was made by the within mentioned Complainant,
on the 17th November 1978.
YOU ARE THEREFORE HEREBY SUMMONED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MAGISTRATES' COURT SITTING AT THE COURTHOUSE, HAREFIELD ROAD, UXBRIDGE
on Thursday, 11th January 1979
AT 10.00 a.m. TO ANSWER TO THE SAID COMPLAINT.
(Signature)
CLERK TO THE JUSTICES.
per Solicitors,
Edward Mackie & Co.,
39 The Mall,
Ealing, W5.
Any communication with respect to this summons should be addressed to the CLERK TO THE JUSTICES, UXBRIDGE, accompanied by a stamped addressed envelope.
SCHEDULE
Twelve £5 Bank of England notes, ninetytwo £10 Bank of England notes, sixtyseven £1 Bank of England notes, four £5 Bank of Clydesdale notes, three US 10 dollar notes, one US 5 dollar note, twentyseven US 1 dollar notes, 2 ten dollar Fijian notes, 5 five dollar Fijian notes, 3 two dollar Fijian notes & 2 one dollar Fijian notes."
The hearing
On 11th January, 1979 the application was heard by the Magistrates sitting at Uxbridge. The Polic had made inquiries and had not been able to trace any of the true owners of the currency notes. No doubt if the currency notes were stolen, the true owners were travellers who had gone on their way. So the Police had no evidence to refute the evidence of Mr. Prasad. They decided not to oppose his application. They told the Clerk to the Justices that they were not opposing the application.
At the hearing Mr. Prasad was represented by Counsel. The Police were represented, not by lawyers, but by Detective Constable Leonard from the Heathrow Police Station and by Mrs. Pawley, a civilian executive officer of the Police Property Department. Mr. Prasad had been brought from prison for the hearing. He gave evidence to the effect that the currency notes belonged to him. The Police representatives said that they did not wish to cross-examine him nor did they object to the order being made.
Counsel for Mr. Prasad then asked for an order against the Police that they should pay costs. He said that they amounted to £350. The Police representatives opposed. They submitted that there was no power in such a case to order costs. They produced an extract from the "Justices of the Peace News and Local Government Review" for 1968 in which the opinion was expressed that there was no power to make such an order.
The Justices retired. Their Clerk advised them that they had power to make an order for costs. They ordered the Police to pay £350 costs. Their order was drawn up and concluded in this way:
"AND the said Complainant applies for the delivery of the said property to him, he being the owner thereof. Pursuant to the Police (Property) Act, 1897.
IT IS THIS DAY adjudged that the said complaint is true and it is ordered that the said property be delivered to Mr. Deo Prasad and that the Defendant should pay £350 costs to the Complainant.
DATED the 11th day of January 1979."
A surprising order.
I must say that I am most surprised by the order of the Magistrates. The Police had done nothing wrong at all. They had taken possession of these currency notes—absolutely properly—because they were reasonably suspected by them to have been stolen. They retained them pending trial equally properly. They were absolutely right not to deliver them without a Court order. IT they had given them up to Mr. Prasad and the true owners had turned up afterwards, the Police would have been liable in damages to the true owners. Only by a Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chief Constable of Kent v v
...Police Commissioner (1980) 1 Queen's Bench 49; and Reg. v. Uxbridge Justices, ex parte Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1981) 1 Queen's Bench 829, unless in special circumstances the court directs them to be held until after the trial. 9 Money in a bank account 10 Apply those principles to......
-
R (Perinpanathan) v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court
...licensing is not the only context in which a similar principle has been considered to be applicable. The context of R v Uxbridge Justices, ex p Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1981] 1 QB 829 was closer to the present. The applicant had been arrested and sentenced to 18 months' imp......
-
Secretary of State for the Home Department v BM
...judicial or administrative. The jurisdiction if it exists must be found in a statute' per Denning LJ in Regina v Uxbridge Justices ex parte Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis. 6. Part I (Sections 1-11) of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 contains no express power to award inter par......
-
O'leary International Ltd v The Chief Constable of North Wales Police Crown Prosecution Service (Interested Party)
...is followed they are not liable in conversion: see the observations of Lord Denning MR and Sir Stanley Rees in R v Uxbridge Justices ex p Commissioner of Metropolitan Police [1981] QB 829 at 834 and 846– 7. S.1(2) of the 1897 Act provides that where an order is made under s.1(1), that order......