Sheldon v Bromfield Justices
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1964 |
| Year | 1964 |
| Court | Divisional Court |
Justices - Peace - Recognisances to keep - Witness - No warning by court of contemplation to bind over - No opportunity accorded to witness to be heard - Witness bound over to keep peace - Whether contrary to natural justice. - Natural justice - Opportunity to meet charge - Recognisances to keep peace - Witness bound over to keep peace - No opportunity of being heard.
The appellants, a husband and wife, were witnesses and gave evidence on oath for the prosecution on a charge brought by an inspector of police against their son-in-law for an assault occasioning actual bodily harm to the wife. No information, summons, complaint or charge was issued or laid against, or put to, the appellants before or at any stage of the hearing, at which they were not legally represented. During the hearing the appellants blamed the son-in-law, who blamed them. The appellants were not warned that the justices contemplated binding them over, and were not accorded the opportunity of being heard in their own defence. The justices dismissed the charge and bound over the son-in-law and also the appellants to keep the peace for 12 months in their own recognisance of £20. On appeal against the order that the appellants be bound over:—
Held, that while justices had the power, without proof of any offence, to bind over all persons, including witnesses, brought before the justices, a mere witness had to be told what was in contemplation and have an opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, since the appellants were witnesses, and had been bound over without warning of what was in contemplation and without being accorded an opportunity of being heard in their own defence, the justices had acted contrary to natural justice, and the appeal would be allowed and the order quashed.
SPECIAL CASE STATED.
On March 19, 1963, justices of the peace at Bromfield Petty Sessions, the respondents, heard and determined a charge, preferred by one Henry Stanley Edwards, a chief inspector of police, against one Charles Wilfred Marsh, of assaulting his mother-in-law, Mary Elizabeth Sheldon, the second appellant, thereby occasioning her actual bodily harm contrary to section 47 of the
The following facts were stated: No information, summons or complaint whatsoever was issued against the appellants before the hearing. No charge or complaint of any kind whatsoever was laid against or put to the appellants at any stage of the hearing. The appellants were not accorded the opportunity of being heard in their own defence before they were bound over. Being present at the hearing purely as witnesses for the prosecution, and not having been warned of the possibility that they might be bound over, the appellants were not legally represented at the hearing.
The appellants contend that the justices had no jurisdiction or were otherwise in law not entitled to bind the appellants over to keep the peace...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clarke v Hogan
...Citations: BOYLAN, R V LONDONDERRY JUSTICES 1912 2 IR 374 MULHOLLAND, R V MONAGHAN JUSTICES 1914 2 IR 156 SHELDON V BROOMFIELD JUSTICES 1964 2 QB 573 TANNER, EX PARTE JUDGMENTS OF THE SUPERIOR COURTS IN IRELAND 190, 364 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION ACT 1914 S43(13) Synopsis: CONSTITUTIO......
-
Vella v Commissioner of Police (NSW)
...Ashworth and Zedner, Preventive Justice (2014) at 74–94. 26 Thomas v Mowbray (2007) 233 CLR 307 at 329 [16], 356 [116]. See also Sheldon v Bromfield Justices [1964] 2 QB 573 at 577; R v Wright; Ex parte Klar (1971) 1 SASR 27 Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1769), bk 4 at 2......
-
Thomas v Mowbray and Ors
...analogy’ or precedent for s 104.4(1)(d) of the Code. 333 The nature of binding over orders was described by Lord Parker CJ in Sheldon v Bromfield Justices425: ‘It is well known that justices have power pursuant to their commission or pursuant to the Justices of the Peace Act, 1361, to bind ......
-
(1) Joanna Louise Hourihane (2) Sarah Jane Hourihane (Plaintiffs v The Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis (Defendant
...their claim that the dismissed charges were maliciously brought. An acquitted defendant may be bound over to keep the peace, see Sheldon v. Bonfield Justices [1964] 2 QB 573, R. v. Woking Justices, Ex Parte Gossage [1973] 1 QB 448 and see R. v. Hendon Justices, Ex Parte Gorchein [1973] 1 WL......
-
Courts 2
...so, it will be Para. 1778 Vol. 6 Pt. II: COURTS 2 298 in breach of the parties’ right to fair hearing. Sheldon v. Brownfield Justices (1964) 2 Q.B. 573 at 578 and Regina v. Hendon Justice ex parte Govchein (1973) 1 W.L.R. 1502.” In the case in hand, neither in their pleadings, nor in the ad......
-
Cases referred to in 1989 Part II
...Wakefield (1891) A.C. 173. .......................................................................... 213 Sheldon v. Bromfield Justices (1964) 2 Q.B. 573 .......................................................... 103 Shell B.P. Limited v. Abedi (1974) 1 All N.L.R. 1. 379 Shell BP v. Cole (1......
-
Table of Cases
...Shazali v. State (1988) 12 S.C.N.J. 145; (1988) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 93) 164............178 Sheldon v. Bromfieled Justice (1964) 2 Q.B. 573..............................................568 Shell B. Petroleum Development Co. v. Onasanya (1976) 6 S.C. 59.........157, 179 [111] Table of Cases Vol. ......
-
Fundamental Rights
...issues in the case before reaching a decision which may be prejudicial to any party in the case. See Sheldon v. Bromfield Justices (1964) 2 Q.B. 573, at p. 578. (ii) that the Court or tribunal shall give equal treatment, opportunity, and consideration to all concerned. See on this Adigun v.......