Re Hastings (No. 3)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE ROMER |
| Judgment Date | 15 June 1959 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1959] EWCA Civ J0615-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 15 June 1959 |
[1959] EWCA Civ J0615-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
The Master of the Rolls
(Lord Evershed)
Lord Justice Romer
Lord Justice Pearce
The Appellant (Applicant) appeared in Person.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (The Rt. Hon. Sir Harry Hylton-Poster, Q.C.) and THE HON J.R. CUMMING-BRUCE, instructed by The Treasury Solicitor, appeared for the Respondents (Respondents).
The appellant in this court, Edwardn Thomas Hastings, was convicted in July, 1957, in the Crown Court at Liverpool on five counts. The first count was for alleged felony and the second to the fifth inclusive were for alleged misdemeanours. Having been convicted on all five counts, the sentence imposed upon him was as follows: "four years "corrective training". It will be observed that the sentence did not say anything about any particular charge; it did not link the sentence or parte of it with any of the charges, nor did it say expressly whether the four years was intended to be concurrent on all the charges or consecutive on some or all of them.
Mr. Hastings appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal by leave and he succeeded in getting the conviction on the first count for felony quashed. He had also appealed on the second and third counts, but in those respects he failed.
The next step was that Mr, Hastings applied for an order of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum to a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division presided over by the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Goddard. The appellant's point was that the four years 'corrective training should be related exclusively to the charge of felony, which had now been quashed, and that he therefore had no effective sentence outstanding against him and was entitled to be released. The divisional Court rejected that view, holding that in the circumstances the sentence of four years' corrective training must be treated as having been concurrent in respect of all the charges, so that the quashing of the conviction on the felony left the four years' corrective training sentence outstanding and effective in respect of the second to the fifth charges respectively.
Against that decision of the Divisional Court Mr. Hastings sought to appeal to this court, and I have in my hand the judgment of this court delivered on 28th July of last year. On that occasion Mr. Hastings was represented by leading counsel and the respondents, who I think were the Governor of the Prison or the Crown or both, were represented by the Solicitor-General and two other counsel.
A preliminary objection was taken by the Solicitor-General that no appeal lay upon this matter to this court having regard to the language of section 31 (1) of the Judicature Act, 192, which says: "No appeal shall lie except as provided by the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, or this Act from any judgment of the High Court in any criminal cause or matter". This court pointed out that no question arose out of the exceptions (that is the references to the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, or to the Judicature Act itself) so that the single point for decision was whether Mr. Hastings's atteaipted appeal was or would if entertained "be an appeal in a criminal cause or matter.
The members of this court then sitting referred to certain decisions, Ex parte Alice Woodhall, reported in 20 Queen's Bench Division, at page 832, the later case of The King v. Governor of Maiustojae Prison, Ex parte Maguire, reported in 41 Times Law Reports, at page 554, and the still later case of Amand, a decision of the Houno of Lords, reported in 1943 Appeal Cases, at page 147. The court pointed out that the first two decisions which I have mentioned were decisions under the earlier Judicature Act of 1873, though th. oy observed that the material statutory language did not differ, and also that they had been since approved in decisions since 1925. The case of Re Amand was, of course, a case since the 1925 Act had been passed.
I do not propose to refer at length to the judgment of this court in Mr, Hastings's earlier appeal or to citations from the three authorities which I have mentioned. It is sufficient to say that this court clearly took the view that an application...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ben Hashem v Al Shayif
...That was a case in which I was invited, but refused, to annul a husband's bankruptcy. Having referred to what Vaisey J had said in In re Hastings (No 3) [1959] Ch 368 at pages 377–378, I observed at para [60]: “The Family Division applies precisely the same principles, and in precisely the......
-
Clibbery v Allan and another
...[1983] 1 AC 280, [1982] 1 All ER 532, [1982] 2 WLR 338. Hastings (No 3), Re [1959] Ch 368, [1959] 1 All ER 698, [1959] 2 WLR 454; affd [1959] 3 All ER 221, [1959] 1 WLR 807, Hodgson v Imperial Tobacco Ltd [1998] 2 All ER 673, [1998] 1 WLR 1056, CA. Jenkins v Livesey (formerly Jenkins) [1985......
-
Pitt and Another v Holt and Another Futter and Another v Futter and Others
... ... Both appeals raise issues about the so-called rule in Hastings-Bass ... One appeal ( Pitt ) also raises issues as to the court's jurisdiction to set aside a voluntary disposition on the ground of mistake. It is ... It is the Revenue that has taken on the task of challenging, if not the existence, at least the limits of the Hastings-Bass rule. It is no coincidence that the judgment of the Court of Appeal in these two appeals (which were heard together in that court also) is the first fully ... ...
-
L v K (Freezing Orders: Principles and Safeguards) [Family Division]
...Court in which all general jurisdiction is vested in all of its judges (see sections 4(3), 5(5) and 19(4) Senior Courts Act 1981 and Re Hastings (No. 3) [1959] Ch 368, per Vaisey J at 377–378), a technical claim such as this should be first heard by a specialist judge provided that the main......