Recent Judicial Decisions
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X9206500314 |
| Author | John Wood |
| Published date | 01 July 1992 |
| Date | 01 July 1992 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
PROFESSOR
SIR
JOHN
WOOD,
C.B.E., L.L.M.,
The University
of
Sheffield Legal Correspondent
of
thePoliceJournal
Recent Judicial Decisions
A
SPLIT
BENCH
R.
v.
RedbridgeJustices, ex parte GurmitRam
[1992] 2 W.L.R. 197 Divisional Court
The appellant was charged with theft and appeared before a bench
of
two
magistrates. They were unable to agree as to the correct verdict and so
remitted the case to a fresh bench of three magistrates. At the second
hearing it was argued that the first bench should, in the circumstances,
have acquitted the accused. Reliance was placed upon s.9(2)
of
the
Magistrates CourtsAct 1980 which provides that "the court, after hearing
the evidence and the parties, shall convict the accused or dismiss the
information." The court should have done one or the other, whereas in fact
it did neither. In fact, the magistrates acted on the advice
of
their clerk in
the course they took. He was guidedby the decision in Baggv. Colquhoun
an adjournment to another bench.
It was indicatedby the magistrates' court that because
of
the amount
of
work it was fairly frequently necessary to resort to a bench
of
two
magistrates. Apparentlysome magistrates' clerks take the view that where
this leads to a failure to agree the accused is entitled to be acquitted.
Practice is not uniform. Although such failure to agree is relatively
infrequent the Divisional Court took the obvious view that there must be
uniformity of practicein the various courts. Where there is disagreement,
whether upon the exercise of one of their many discretions, or on the
verdictitselfthere can only be two choices - to acquit or to remit to another
bench. The law must decide for it is not satisfactory that a bench should
have a discretion as to which solution it chooses.
Not surprisingly the matter has been considered before by the authors
of manuals and text books. Again, not surprisingly, the authors are not
agreed - indeed Watkins
LJ.
pointed out that one author had changed the
emphasis of his views between editions! One solution suggested - which
is idealisticratherthan realistic - was that one of the two magistrates could
withdraw and leave the other 'victorious'. Not surprisingly, this rather
'academic' solution was disapproved in Bamsley v. Marsh [1947] K.B.
672. Reference was made to the position where at the trial,
ajury
fails to
agree so as to reach an acceptable verdict. Retrial is not unusual - it is a
question of discretion on the part of the prosecution, guided in some cases
by comments from the original trial Judge. Clearly this is not an
appropriate solution for the bench
of
two disagreeing magistrates.
It was argued that the statutory provisions, s.13(2) of the Magistrates
Courts Act 1952, and its successor, s.9(2)
of
the 1980 Act, both indicate
that the bench must make a decision. The even earlier statute - s.14 of the
Summary Jurisdiction Act 1848, also used similar language saying that
274 The Police Journal July 1992
To continue reading
Request your trial