When to Query Summons as Vexatious
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201839906300509 |
| Published date | 01 October 1999 |
| Date | 01 October 1999 |
The Journal
of
Criminal Law
was 'presumably so' in the context of criminalproceedings.In
the
light
of theobservations of Lord GoddardCJ in R vNorthumberland
CAT,
exp
Shaw [1951]1 KB 711,
the
court had on this occasion nooption
but
to
follow what was said in
Swan
v Law
Society
in preference to
what
was said
in the Thai case, even
if
the doctrine of precedent had
not
compelled
them
to do so. On that basis,
the
respondent's case was, as Rose Usaid,
'unanswerable'.
When to QuerySummons as Vexatious
R v Bradford
Justices'
Clerk,
ex p
Sykes
and
Shoesmith
(1999)163 JP 224
Two applicants for judicialreviewof thedecisionof themagistrates'
clerk to issue summonses against them arose in thefollowing circum-
stances.Sykes was arrested and charged withconspiracy to supplya
Class A drug(heroin). After severalappearances before
the
magistrates,
hewas joined by his brother (named Shoesmith)
who
was similarly
charged.After several further adjournments thecustody timelimits ran
out. The magistrates refused an extension of thetimeandgranted the
defendants bail. As theprosecution still wasnot readytoproceed on the
date fixed for
the
hearing, afurther adjournment was requested. This
was refusedand,in theabsenceof anyevidence,both defendants were
discharged.Nextday, however, fresh informations were laid
and
fresh
summonses were issued. Both defendants appliedfor judicialreview of
the decisionsto proceed in this way.
The decisions in R v
Manchester
SM,
exp
Snelson
[1977]1 WLR911
and
inR
v
Grays
JJ,expGraham[1982]3 All ER 653establish
the
rule
that
the
dischargeof adefendant in committal proceedings does
not
operate as a
bar to a subsequent prosecution for
the
same offence, provided the
prosecution is
not
acting vexatiously.
Where asummons is issuedtoavoidtheoperation of custody time
limits or in order to give
the
prosecution what has been called 'a dry
run'
(see R v
Horsham
JJ, exp
Reeves
[1981]CrimLR 566),anapplication for
a fresh summons would be anabuse of process
if
thefirst proceedings
had
failed. But in theinstant case, it was shown that the earlier proceed-
ings
had
clearly established that there was a prima fade case made
out
by
the prosecution against the defendants (a 'strong' case againstSykes
and
an 'apparent' case againstShoesmith), In these circumstances, it could
not
be argued by the applicants that as thecase stood
when
it was before
the Divisional Court the summons, as judged at that moment, could
be said to be vexatious. What, therefore, was argued was that it was
vexatious because the very next dayafterthecase wasdismissed
and
the
defendants discharged in the magistrates' court,fresh summonses were
sought (and granted), although there clearly could havebeen no change
in the circumstances overnight. The applicants claimed that on those
facts there was an affront tothe magistrates who had granted the
defendants their discharge. The issue which was thus raised in the
Divisional Court was whether, on the assumption that the immediate
406
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day 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
Start Your 3-day 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
Start Your 3-day 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
Start Your 3-day 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
Start Your 3-day 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