The Police and the Law
| Date | 01 January 1955 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X5502800102 |
| Published date | 01 January 1955 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
THE
POLICE
AND
THE
LAW 7
ment. They did not mix with the inmates of the prison. After months
of
careful preparation the five pioneers were placed in work,
and
broadly, they live
and
work as free men. The only sanction against
misbehaviour is return to Parkhurst.
Equally the records of the work of the
"open"
prisons
and
other
similar institutions deserve sympathetic study and encouragement.
The one detention centre maintained in 1953 at Campsfield House is
being followed by two other similar establishments. Inevitably most
of
the boys sent to detention centres are "ex-approved school", of
the types most in need of firm discipline and institutional supervision
before they can be regarded as fit for the liberty
of
normal social
association with their fellow men.
No one can read the report without being impressed with the objects
of
penal methods in Great Britain today, or of the realistic effort made
by the prison service to train and equip offenders to re-enter society.
The Police and The Law
THE
RIGHT
OF THE
POLICE
TO
DECIDE
ON THE
ApPROPRIATE
CHARGE
TO BE
BROUGHT.
ALL who are responsible for the initiation of criminal proceedings,
and particularly the Police, will welcome the firm ruling given
by the Divisional Court in the case of R. v. Nuneaton Justices,
Ex
parte Parker (1954 1 W.L.R. 1318) on a point of practice about which
there have been differences of opinion between informants, who
apply for a summons, and justices who grant one. In this case a
police inspector applied to justices for the grant of a summons for
driving without due care and attention contrary to section 12 of the
Road Traffic Act 1930 but the chairman of the justices refused to
issue the summons, stating that he was only prepared to grantasummons
for dangerous driving under section 11
of
the Act. On an application
by the inspector to the Divisional Court, it was ruled that it was
for the prosecution, not for the justices, to decide what, on the evidence
before them, the appropriate charge should be and, therefore, an
order of mandamus was issued by the Court directing the justices to
issue a summons for the lesser charge.
The chairman of the justices in an affidavit referred to certain
remarks made by Mr. Justice Devlin in In re Beresford (1952, 36
Cr. App. R. 1). He was there concerned with the question whether
it was desirable to charge adefendant with manslaughter where death
had taken place
and
Devlin J. said: "Speaking generally, when dan-
gerous driving results in death, there is likely to be, at any rate, a
To continue reading
Request your trial