Recent Judicial Decisions
| Date | 01 October 1970 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X7004301013 |
| Published date | 01 October 1970 |
| Author | J. C. Wood |
| Subject Matter | Article |
PROFESSOR
J.
C.
WOOD,
LL.
M.
The University
of
Sheffield:
Legal Correspondent
of
The Police Journal
REfJENT JUDIfJIAL DEfJISIONS
Roy
v. Prior
[1970]
3 W.L.R. 202 House of Lords
Prior,
1;1
solicitor, acted for an accused, Advani, who was charged
with larceny. Roy the plaintiff was Advani's doctor and it was felt
that he could usefully give evidence at the trial as to Advani's re-
sponsibility for his actions. A witness summons was issued requiring
Prior to attend the trial.
It
was claimed by Prior that this summons
was not served on him nor was he told of it. So Prior did not attend
the trial and counsel asked for a bench warrant for the arrest of
Prior on the ground that he was deliberately evading service. This
was granted and Prior was duly arrested. He was arrested shortly
after midnight and was kept in custody until brought to the court
at 10.30 a.m.
It
was Prior's contention that Roy was acting
maliciously and without reasonable or proper cause.
The case arose on a contention
that
the claim as drafted disclosed
no cause of action. This meant
that
the Courts, before the facts were
established, were being asked to say whether, assuming them to be
true, an action lies. The Court of Appeal declared the statement
of
claim to be bad.
It
did so on the grounds that the bench warrant was
issued as a result of evidence given by the defendant in court. Since
a witness cannot be sued for what he says in the witness box the
action could not succeed.
It
was held that if a civil action cannot be
brought in respect of a statement on oath so may it not be brought
in respect of instructions to apply for an arrest.
The House of Lords, however, disagreed.
It
was pointed out
that
the claim was based on the alleged abuse of court procedure. This
was being used maliciously to secure Mr. Prior's arrest it was alleged.
If this could be established it would found a civil action and it was
not
defeated because the method of putting the arrest into operation
involved the giving of evidence which would not of itself found a
civil action.
Note:
This interesting case serves to underline the point
that
although a lying witness
may be prosecuted for perjury he is not liable to a civil action for damages.
This point is illustrated by Hargreaves v. Bretherton, [195911 Q.B. 45.
ALIBI
R. v. Sullivan
[1970]
3W.L.R. 210 Court of Appeal
Sullivan was convicted at Quarter Sessions of dangerous driving.
His defence was
that
the car described by the prosecutor was not his,
nor was he the driver in question. He wanted to show that at the
alleged time on January 5, he was elsewhere. The position was that he
had received a notice of intended prosecution on January 10. On
January 21, he had been interviewed by the police. On March 13 he
October 1970 327
To continue reading
Request your trial