Statutory Declaration not Retrospective in Effect
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201839906300515 |
| Published date | 01 October 1999 |
| Date | 01 October 1999 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The
Journal
of
Criminal
Law
to
the
need to make the advance disclosure which, as a responsible
prosecutor, he should recognise as material which should be disclosed at
an
earlier stage; for example, acomplainant's previous convictions,
material which might assist the defendant to obtain bail or to obtain a
stay or a committal on a lesser charge.
6. Any precommittal disclosure would normally be of material which
would otherwise be made under s 3 of the Actin stage 1 of the procedure
laid down by that section;
but
there may be 'earlier' disclosure of
material which would normally be made only in stage 2 of that pro-
cedure (that is, in reply to the defendant's statement of defence). That
latter possibility would occur, however, only in exceptional circum-
stances.
7. There can be no circumstances in which aprosecutor could be
required to give a 'full-blown common law discovery' during the pre-
committal stage.
8. Within this framework, it will be for the prosecutor to ask himself
whether
any particular material should be delivered to
the
defence
before committal because justice demands it.
Guidelines, in their very nature, require to be stated in general terms.
The above guidelines are perhaps an extreme example of this. They
clearly leave ample scope for counsels' argument on
any
future
occasion.
Professor
l.A.
Coutts
Statutory Declaration not Retrospective in Effect
R v
Peterborough
Magistrates'
Court,
ex p laspal
Singh
(unreported,
14 April 1999)
On 9 April 1997 the appellant was disqualified from driving in his
absence by
the
Leicester justices." The disqualification was imposed
under
s 35 of the Road Traffic Offenders
Act>
1988
and
in accordance
with
the
procedures laid down by s 10(3) of
the
Magistrates' Courts Act
1980. On 25 April 1997, the appellant received a letter from the Driver
Vehicle Licensing Agency
(DVLA)
notifying him of the six-month dis-
qualification. Later on the same day the appellant was stopped by the
police driving a motor vehicle in Peterborough. He was found to be in
possession of
the
same letter sent by the
DVLA.
He was later charged
with driving while disqualified. On 4 July 1997 the appellant swore a
statutory declaration under s 14 of the 1980 Act to the effect that he had
not received notice of the hearing leading to his disqualification on 9
April 1997. The declaration was served upon the clerk to the justices on
9July 1997. On 25 April 1998 the appellant was convicted
by
the
Peterborough justices of driving while disqualified.
It was contended on appeal that the serving of the statutory declara-
tion in accordance with the provisions of s 14 of
the
1980 Act had
rendered
the
original disqualification void. It was further contended that
the swearing of the declaration had retrospective effect in that the
418
To continue reading
Request your trial