The Gazette 1973

ENGLISH CURRENT LAW DIGEST In reading these cases note should be taken of the differences in English and Irish statute law. All dates relate to dates reported in The Times newspaper. Auctioneer Before Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Karminski and Lord Justice Buckley.

grounds for suspecting that a person has committed an offence, he shall caution that person . . . before putting . . . any questions, or further questions . . ." means evidence which shows the officer that he has the beginnings of a case against the suspect. Regina v. Osborne and Regina v. Virtue; C.A.; 11/12/1972. Before Lord Widgery, the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Ashworth and Mr. Justice Willis. If the Divisional Court were to allow a doctor's appeal from a mandatory 12 months' driving disqualification under section 5(1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1962, the door to a narrow escape route would be opened dangerously wide. Holroyd v. Berry; Q.B.D.; 12/12/72. Before Lord Widgery, the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Ashworth and Mr. Justice Willis. At committal proceedings the prosecution have a d'scre- tion not to call even a principal witness if a prima facie case can be shown from supporting evidence. The function of com- mittal proceedings is to ensure that no one shall stand trial unless a prima facie case has been made out; they are not a rehearsal for the defence to try out cross-examination on prosecution witnesses with a view to using the result to ad- vantage at trial. Regina v. Epping and Harlow; Q.B.D.; 15/12/1972. Evidence Before Lord Widgery, the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Will's and Mr. Justice Talbot. [Judgment delivered December 5th] There is no rule of law that justices must accept the evi- dence of a witness merely because it is not challenged, the Lord Chief Justice said when giving judgment on an appeal from Wallasey justices. O'Connell v. Adams; Q.B.D.; 6/12/1972. Redundancy Before Sir Samuel Cooke, Mr. R. Boyfield and Mr. C. G. Robinson. [Judgment delivered December 15th] The mere facts that an employee for a short period worked hours similar to those which he had worked under his contract with a previous employer and accepted wages calculated on the old basis were not necessarily conclusive evidence that there had been an offer by conduct by the new employer to re-engage the employee on all the terms of the previous con- tract within the meaning of section 3 (2) (a) of the Redun- dancy Payments Act, 1965, or that he had accepted such an offer. Accordingly he had been dismissed for the purposes of redundancy payment. Catin v. Botley Garages Ltd.; National Industrial Relations Court; 20/12/1972. Before Sir Samuel Cooke, Mr. R. Boyfield and Professor T. L. Johnston. An employee who was given notice of dismissal before the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, 1971, giving a right to compensation for unfair dismissal came into force, but which expired after the Act had come into force, was held not to be entitled to compensation for unfair dismissal since h ; s employment had been terminated forthwith by an agree- ment made with his employers during the period of notice prior to the Act. Lees v. Arthur Greaves (Lees); National Industrial Rela- tions Court; 14/12/1972. Time Before Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justue Karminski and Mr. Justice Megarry. [Judgments delivered December 14th] Where an Act of Parliament prescribes a period of time for doing any act which can only be done if the offices of the court are open on the day when the period expires, and that day is a Saturday, Sunday, or other dies non, the time is to be extended until the next day on which the offices of the court are open. Mr. Justice Megarry said: "The difference 33

An auctioneer, both under the common law since 1788 and under conditions for car auction sales in common use, was held to have a lien on goods auctioned and can sue the purchaser in his own name for the whole purchase price, even though the auctioneer has already received enough by way of deposit to cover his own commission and charges. Chelmsford Auctions Ltd. v. Poole; C.A.; 20/12/1972. Banking Before Sir John Donaldson, President, Mr. R. Davies and Mr. H. Roberts. When banks are faced with a writ of sequestration against assets in a client's account they are bound to give the com- missioners of sequestration the desired information and make the required payment from the client's account, even against the client's wishes and in spite of the confidence inherent in the banker-client relationship. A bank would be acting un- reasonably in future if it required the sequestrators to obtain a specific order from the court to enforce the payment. Eckman & others v. Midland Bank and Another; National Industrial Relations Board; 7/12/72. Certiorari The Divisional Court refused an application for certiorari by Colin Hewitt, aged 20, of Compton Street, Derby, to quash an order made by Chesterfield just'ces sentencing him to an effective total of nine months' imprisonment for driving offences. The Lord Chief Justice, who sat with Mr. Justice Ashworth and Mr. Justice Willis, said that section 107(3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, imposed a mandatory duty on justices to state the reason why they considered that no sentence other than imprisonment was appropriate when sentencing a person under 21 but failure to do so did not affect the vahdity of the sentence passed. Regina v. Chesterfield Justices Ex parte Hewitt; QBD; 12/12/1972. Crime Before Lord Justice Phillimore, Lord Justice Stephenson, Lord Justice Lawton, Mr. Justice Melford Stevenson and Mr. Justice Brabin. [Judgment delivered December 15th] A five-judge court held that the meaning of "dishonesty" in section 1(1) of the Theft Act, 1968, was a matter to be decided by a jury applying the current standards of ordinary decent people, and that a taking by an employee in breach of instructions but to which no moral obloquy could reasonably be attached was not stealing within section 1(1). Regina v. Feeley; CA; 21/12/1972. Before Lord Justice Edmund Davies, Mr. Justice Cantly and Mr. Just'ce Browne. A man with a bad criminal record who was wrongly cross- examined about it by his co-accused on their joint trial for different offences lost an appeal against conviction because, the court held in an unprecedented case, no miscarriage of justice had occurred. Regina v. Lovett; C.A.; 21/12/1972. Before Lord Widgery, the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Willis and Mr. Justice Talbot. A university student who, after eating one course of a,meal in a Chinese restaurant, decided not to pay for it but waited until the waiter was out of the room before leaving the restaurant, d'd not practise a deception to evade payment of the debt. Ray v. Sempers; Q.B.D.; 20/12/1972. Before Lord Justice Lawton, Mr. Justice Melford Stevenson and Mr. Justice Brabin. [Judgement delivered December 8th] "Evidence" in rule 2 of the Judges' Rules, 1964, "As soon as a police officer has evidence which would afford reasonable