Recent Judicial Decisions
| Date | 01 July 1981 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X8105400312 |
| Published date | 01 July 1981 |
| Author | John Wood |
| Subject Matter | Article |
PROFESSOR
SIR
JOHN
WOOD,
LB.E-,
LL.M.
llle
Universit v
of
Sheffield.
Legal Correspondent
of/he
POUCE
JOURNAlJ
RECENT
JUDICIAL
DECISIONS
HOLDING
ACTION
AND
DELAY
R. v. Brentford Justices. Ex parte Wong [1981] 2
W.L.R.
203
Divisional
Court
On
January
30, 1978, there was a traffic accident in Staines
Road.
Mr. Wong's car, which lacked an
M.O.T.
test certificate, was
involved.
Two
days before the six
month's
time limit,
that
is to say on
June
28, an
information
was laid
"as
aprotective measure" to prevent
failure to meet the time limit set
out
by s.104
of
the Magistrates'
Courts
Act 1952. It
appears
that
at
that
time the police
prosecutor
had
not
made
up his mind
whether
or
not
to prosecute. This does
not
mean
that
he was necessarily have ring - it meant
that
several
matters, such as the availability
of
police witnesses,
had
not
been
determined. A
summons
as to driving
without
due
care
and
attention
was issued
along
with one relating to
the
M.O.T. certificate offence.
Thesesummonses were not served immediately. Indeed it was almost a
further
six
months
before they were served, the
date
being
December
7.
The
hearing occurred on April 25, 1979.
The
lawyer
appearing
for
Wong
objected to the delay which he submitted had
made
it very
difficult for Mr.
Wong
to defend himself because
of
the fading
recollection of witnesses
after
that
long lapse
of
time.
The
magistrates
thought
that
the
point,
which was a
major
legal one, was
best dealt with by way of
an
application
for an
order
of
prohibition
before the Divisional
Court.
That
was done.
Donaldson,
L.
J~,
giving the decision of the
court
could
find no
direct precedent. However, some help was
obtained
from three
previous decisions. In R. v. Newcastle-Upon-TyneJustices,
Exparte
John
Bryce (Contractors) Ltd. [1976] I
W.L.R.
517, an application
had
been
made
to
amend
a
summons
beyond
the
six
month
period.
Apparently
this did
not
cause
the
defendant
difficulty
but
the
power
to
amend
itself,
out
of
time, was challenged.
The
powerto
amend
was
held
not
to be subject to
the
time limit.
The
purpose
of
the
time limit
was plainly stated to be to avoid delay.
Not
surprisingly the powerto
amend,
provided it was reasonably used, was confirmed. B. v.
Fairford Justices, Ex parte Brewster [1976] Q.B. 600 went further. In
that
case new
summonses
had
been issued
after
the
six
months'
period
had
elapsed because
the
original ones
had
proved to be
defective.
This
was held, on
the
facts,
not
to be wrong,
although
Lord
Widgery,
c.J.,
emphasized
that
such
action
should
not
be
taken
if
290 July
/98/
To continue reading
Request your trial