S. (an Infant) v Recorder of Manchester

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
CourtHouse of Lords
Year1969
Date1969
[HOUSE OF LORDS] S. (AN INFANT) BY PARSONS (HIS NEXT FRIEND) APPELLANT AND RECORDER OF MANCHESTER AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS 1969 July 16, 17, 21; Oct. 21 Lord Reid, Lord MacDermott, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Guest and Lord Upjohn

Justices - Plea - Change of - Plea of guilty - Juvenile offender consenting to be tried summarily - Conviction entered in register - Defendant remanded for medical report - Application to change plea to not guilty at adjourned hearing - Whether conviction complete - Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952 (15 & 16 Geo. 6 & 1 Eliz. 2, c. 55) ss. 13 (3), 14 (3).F1 - Justices - Summary proceedings - Conviction - When complete. - Justices - Jurisdiction - Functi officio - Plea of guilty - Finding of guilt recorded in register - Remand in custody - Subsequent application to change plea - Whether power to permit.

On May 30, 1968, the appellant, then aged 16, appeared before a juvenile court on a charge of attempted rape. He consented to be tried summarily, and pleaded guilty. Before the end of that day's hearing this plea had been accepted and the magistrates had entered a finding of guilt. The hearing was then adjourned until June 20, 1968, for the purpose of inquiry into the appellant's physical and mental condition.

On the adjourned hearing the appellant was legally represented and his solicitor, having drawn the attention of the court to the appellant's mental condition and to what were said to be instances of previous spurious confessions on his part, asked that he be allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty and to plead not guilty instead. The magistrates, however, refused the application on the grounds that they were functi officio and had no such authority. They thereupon proceeded to consider the medical reports and to make a hospital order against the appellant under section 60 of the Mental Health Act, 1959.

On appeal:—

Held, allowing the appeal, that a court of summary jurisdiction which had accepted a plea of guilty to the offence charged was not in law debarred from permitting (at any time before passing sentence) a plea of not guilty to be substituted. That, accordingly, on the facts found it was open to the juvenile court on June 20, 1968, to permit the appellant to withdraw his plea of guilty and to substitute therefor a plea of not guilty (post, pp. 27D, E, 34F–35C, 39G, H, 40A–C, 43A).

Observations of Lord Goddard C.J. in Rex v. Norfolk Justices, Ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions [1950] 2 K.B. 558, 569; [1950] 2 All E.R. 42, D.C. applied.

Reg. v. Guest, Ex parte Anthony [1964] 1 W.L.R. 1273; [1964] 3 All E.R. 385, D.C. and Reg. v. Gore Justices, Ex parte N. (An Infant) [1966] 1 W.L.R. 1522; [1966] 3 All E.R. 991, D.C. overruled.

Rex v. Sheridan [1937] 1 K.B. 223, C.C.A. and Rex v. Grant [1936] 2 All E.R. 1156, C.C.A. considered.

Decision of the Divisional Court reversed.

The following cases are referred to in their Lordships' opinions:

Burgess v. Boetefeur (1844) 7 Man. & G. 481.

Reg. v. Ackroyd and Jagger (1843) 1 Car. & Kir. 158.

Reg. v. Blaby [1894] 2 Q.B. 170.

Reg. v. Blandford Justices, Ex parte G. (An Infant) [1967] 1 Q.B. 82; [1966] 2 W.L.R. 1232; [1966] 1 All E.R. 1021, D.C.

Reg. v. Campbell, Ex parte Hoy [1953] 1 Q.B. 585; [1953] 2 W.L.R. 578; [1953] 1 All E.R. 684, D.C.

Reg. v. Clouter and Heath (1859) 8 Cox C.C. 237.

Reg. v. Cole [1965] 2 Q.B. 388; [1965] 3 W.L.R. 263; [1965] 2 All E.R. 29, C.C.A.

Reg. v. Drury (1849) 3 Cox C.C. 544.

Reg. v. Durham Quarter Sessions, Ex parte Virgo [1952] 2 Q.B. 1; [1952] 1 All E.R. 466, D.C.

Reg. v. Essex Justices, Ex parte Final [1963] 2 Q.B. 816; [1963] 2 W.L.R. 38; [1963] 3 All E.R. 924, D.C.

Reg. v. Gore Justices, Ex parte N. (An Infant) [1966] 1 W.L.R. 1522; [1966] 3 All E.R. 991, D.C.

Reg. v. Guest, Ex parte Anthony [1964] 1 W.L.R. 1273; [1964] 3 All E.R. 385, D.C.

Rex v. Harris (1797) 7 Durn. & E. 238.

Reg. v. McNally [1954] 1 W.L.R. 933; [1954] 2 All E.R. 372, C.C.A.

Reg. v. Miles (1890) 24 Q.B.D. 423.

Reg. v. Riley [1963] 3 All E.R. 949.

Reg. v. Stonnell (1845) 1 Cox C.C. 142.

Rex v. Grant [1936] 2 All E.R. 1156, C.C.A.

Rex v. Hertfordshire Justices [1911] 1 K.B. 612, D.C.

Rex v. Norfolk Justices, Ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions [1950] 2 K.B. 558; [1950] 2 All E.R. 42, D.C.

Rex v. Sheridan [1937] 1 K.B. 223; [1936] 2 All E.R. 883, C.C.A.

The following additional cases were cited in argument:

Conlin v. Patterson [1915] 2 I.R. 169.

Reg. v. Huntingdon Justices, Ex parte Simpkin and Coombes (1959) 123 J.P. 166, D.C.

Reg. v. Kent Justices, Ex parte Machin [1952] 2 Q.B. 355; [1952] 1 All E.R. 1123, D.C.

Rex v. London Sessions Appeal Committee, Ex parte Rogers [1951] 2 K.B. 74; [1951] 1 All E.R. 343, D.C.

Rex v. Manchester Justices, Ex parte Lever [1937] 2 K.B. 96; [1937] 3 All E.R. 4, D.C.

Rex v. Marsham, Ex parte Pethick Lawrence [1912] 2 K.B. 362, D.C.

Rex v. Plummer [1902] 2 K.B. 339.

Rex v. West Kent Quarter Sessions Appeal Committee, Ex parte Files [1951] 2 All E.R. 728, D.C.

Wemyss v. Hopkins (1875) L.R. 10 Q.B. 378.

APPEAL from the Divisional Court.

This was an appeal by leave of the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division from the decision of the Divisional Court (Lord Parker C.J., Edmund Davies L.J. and Caulfield J.), dated January 23, 1969, dismissing the appeal of the appellant, one S., an infant, from the decision of the Recorder of Manchester sitting at the Crown Court, Manchester, confirming a finding by Manchester City Juvenile Court of guilt of the offence of attempted rape and an order made by that court admitting and detaining the appellant in Calderstones Hospital.

On May 30, 1968, the appellant then aged 16, was charged before Manchester City Juvenile Court with attempted rape. He consented to be tried summarily and pleaded guilty. Before the end of that day's hearing this plea had been accepted and a conviction was recorded. The appellant was thereupon remanded for a medical report until June 20, 1968.

On June 20, the appellant, who was not represented at the earlier hearing, was legally represented by a solicitor. He applied for the plea of guilty and finding of guilt on May 30, to be removed and for the court to accept an amended plea of not guilty. The magistrates, however, refused so to do on the ground that they were functi officio and they ordered the finding of guilt to stand and proceeded to make a hospital order against the appellant under section 60 of the Mental Health Act, 1959.

On August 1, 1968, at the Crown Court at Manchester the Recorder of Manchester dismissed an appeal by the appellant against the above conviction and order and refused to remit the matter to the juvenile court for rehearing.

The appellant, by his next friend Stanley Milmo Parsons, applied to the Divisional Court for an order of certiorari to bring up and quash the appellant's conviction for the offence of attempted rape dated May 30, 1968, and for an order of mandamus directed to the magistrates of Manchester City Juvenile Court requiring them to enter a plea of not guilty to the charge of attempted rape and to hear and determine the matter afresh, and further for an order of certiorari to bring up and quash a refusal by the Recorder of Manchester on August 1, 1968, to allow the appellant's appeal and to remit the matter to the juvenile court for rehearing.

The Divisional Court, applying Reg. v. Gore justices, Ex parte N. (An Infant) [1966] 1 W.L.R. 1522, dismissed the application but subsequently gave leave to appeal to the House of Lords and certified that the following point of law of general public importance was involved in the decision:

1. Whether a court of summary jurisdiction, which has already accepted a plea of guilty to the offence charged, is in law debarred from permitting a plea of not guilty to be substituted at any time before passing sentence.

2. Whether the discretion of a court of summary jurisdiction to allow a change of plea is different from that exercised by a court of record.

3. Whether on the facts found it was open to the Manchester City Juvenile Court on June 6, 1968, to permit the appellant to withdraw his plea of guilty of the offence charged which had been given and entered on May 30, 1968, and to substitute therefor a plea of not guilty.

The facts are more fully stated in their Lordships' opinions.

Rose Heilbron Q.C. and C. B. K. Mantell for the appellant.

Derek Hodgson Q.C. and Joyanne Bracewell for the respondents.

At the conclusion of the hearing their Lordships conferred.

LORD REID stated that their Lordships were of opinion that the appeal succeeded and would give their reasons at a later date.

October 21, 1969. LORD REID. My Lords, in May, 1968, the appellant was a boy of 16 with a mental age of 6½. He was residing in a hostel for subnormal males, having spent most of his life in the care of the local authority and having been for a time in a mental hospital. On May 18, a young woman was assaulted by a youth in a lavatory opposite the hostel. She gave a full description of her assailant and his clothing. On two occasions she failed to identify the appellant and none of the appellant's clothes remotely resembled the clothes which she had described. On May 29, the appellant was being questioned by the police about another matter when this assault was mentioned and the appellant volunteered a confession. On being taken to the police station he made a written confession with much detail which showed that he had considerable knowledge of what had happened. It did not occur to the police that his confession was false or that he might have obtained his knowledge from another inmate of the hostel.

On May 30, he was brought before a juvenile court on a charge of attempting sexual intercourse with the young woman against her will. He was accompanied by an officer of the local authority who had little personal knowledge of him but had a full record. This record showed that on several occasions the appellant had confessed to the commission of criminal offences...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
154 cases
  • Steward v DPP
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • July 30, 2003
    ...have convicted or acquitted, they are functi officio and cannot alter their decision." Mr Lofthouse additionally relies on S v Recorder of Manchester [1971] AC 481, to which I shall make brief reference later. 8 Mr Lofthouse also observes that the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 contains provis......
  • R v South Tameside Magistrates' Court, ex parte Rowland
    • United Kingdom
    • Divisional Court
    • Invalid date
  • Lee Weng Tuck and Another v PP
    • Malaysia
    • Supreme Court (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • New Tuck Shen v PP
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • January 1, 1981
  • Get Started for Free
5 books & journal articles
  • Court of Appeal
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 53-1, February 1989
    • February 1, 1989
    ...of guilt and the termination of a criminalproceeding by a plea or finding of guilt followed by sentence: see Sv. RecorderofManchester [1971]A.C.481.TheCrown claimedthat the second meaning was here the more appropriate, since abankruptcyorderconcerns sentence, and not conviction in thenarrow......
  • Court of Appeal
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 53-3, August 1989
    • August 1, 1989
    ...the analogy of a finding of guilt by thejustices-thisdoes not meanthatthey are functus officio: see R. v. RecorderofManchester [1971]A.C.481. The court proceeded, however, noton any analogy but on the fact that contempt proceedings are suigeneris. The question here was whether the judge was......
  • Divisional Courts
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 38-3, July 1974
    • July 1, 1974
    ...the prosecutionhadbroughtto the attention of theCourtthe recent decision of theHouse of Lords in S. (aninfant)v. Recorder of Manchester (1971,A.C. 481) where ithadbeen heldthatmagistrates' courts, likecourts of assizeandquartersessions, remained seised of a caseuntil sentencehadbeen passeda......
  • Summary Trial
    • Jamaica
    • Criminal practice and procedure in the Magistrates' Courts in the Commonwealth Caribbean
    • June 18, 2010
    ...Applications to withdraw a guilty plea may be made at any stage before sentence is passed. In S (an infant) v Recorder of Manchester (1971) AC 481, the House of Lords stipulated that it has long been the law that when a man pleads ‘guilty’ to an indictment that the trial judge can permit hi......
  • Get Started for Free