93 / 262
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.
Compulsory Acquisition
Before Lord Justice Russell, Lord Justice Buckley and Lord
Justice Lawton.
A local authority acting bona fide is the sole judge of
whether land was no longer required for the purpose for which
it had been originally acquired or appropriated.
Dowty Boulton Paul Ltd. v. Wolverhampton Corporation;
Court of Appeal; 28/2/1973.
Contract Arbitration
Before Lord Justice Cairns, Lord Justice Lawton and Lord
Justice Scarman.
The RIBA Conditions of Engagement for the mutual benefit
of clients and architects do not by themselves constitute a
contract. They only operate by incorporation in a contract.
Almost any dispute that arises between the parties is likely to
involve examination both of the conditions (with the provi-
sions for the reference of disputes to arbitration) and the terms
of the contract. There were not two contracts between the
parties but only one, and an arbitration clause which was
incorporated into the contract should be interpreted as cover-
ing any dispute under the contract.
Sidney Kaye, Eric Firmin and Partners (a firm) v. Bronesky;
Court of Appeal; 23/2/1973.
Crime
Before Lord Widgery, the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice
Ashworth and Mr. Justice Bridge.
Christmas puddings contaminated by mice and found in an
Uxbridge restaurant's dry goods store room were presumed to
be intended for sale for human consumption because of Section
111 (b) of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, and Justices should
not have acceded to a defence submission that there was no
case to answer at the close of evidence for the prosecutor by a
public health inspector that the puddings were found in an
inaccessible tray which was not part of the day to day storage.
Hooper v. Petrou and Another; Queen's Bench Division;
1/3/1973.
The Divisional Court allowed an appeal by Rorke Garfield,
a member of the Hunt Saboteurs Association, who had been
convicted on an information laid before Peterborough magis-
trates, but whose unsuccessful appeal to Huntingdon Crown
Court was heard on the basis of a significantly altered infor-
mation.
The original information charged him with using threat-
ening behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace,
contrary to Section 5 (as amended) of the Public Order Act,
1936, but the amended information before the Crown Court
charged him with using insulting behaviour whereby a breach
of the peace was likely to result contrary to the same section.
Garfield v. Maddocks; 6/2/1973.
Before Lord Widgery, the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice
Park and Mr. Justice May.
For an act preparatory to the commission of an offence
under the Official Secrets Act, 1911, to be a contravention of
Section 7 of the Official Secrets Act, 1920, it is sufficient if the
person committing the act complained of has in mind that
transmission of prejudicial information might follow—not that
it would probably follow.
Their Lordships so held when dismissing an appeal by Mrs.
M. Grace Bingham from her conviction at Winchester Crown
Court (Mr. Justice Shaw) of contravening Section 7 of the
1920 Act, by doing an "act preparatory to the commission of
an offence under" the 1911 Act in that she communicated with
a member of the staff of the Soviet Embassy in London. She
was acquitted on two counts of communicating information
contrary to Section 2 of the 1911 Act.
Regina v. Bingham; Court of Appeal; 13/2/1973.
Before Lord Justice Phillimore, Mr. Justice Cusack and Mr.
Justice Mars-Jones.
A person convicted of cruelty to a child by wilfully neglect-
ing it so as to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health,
contrary to Section 1 (1) of the Children and Young Persons
Act, 1933, is not automatically guilty of manslaughter if the
child dies as a result of the neglect, the Court held, in a
reserved judgment, when allowing an appeal by Robert Lowe,
34, Nottingham, against his conviction of manslaughter by
Nottingham Crown Court (Mr. Justice May).
Regina v. Lowe; Court of Appeal; 24/1/1973.
Before Lord Justice Lawton, Mr. Justice Melford Stevenson
and Mr. Justice Brabin.
A Judge's comment on the failure of a man on trial for
murder to give evidence overstepped justifiable limits of a
discretion in summing up. The Judge should not have made a
comment which the jury could and would have taken to be a
direction that there was nothing in the defence. Nevertheless,
no miscarriage of justice had occurred, and an appeal against
conviction was dismissed.
Regina v. Sparrow; Court of Appeal; 18/1/1973.
Mr. Porter, a hospital patient, discharged himself after
consenting to provide a blood specimen and was arrested out-
side the ward before the specimen was given. His conviction
was quashed on the ground that the police had failed to com-
ply with either the "hospital procedure" or the "police station
procedure" laid down by the Act.
The Court of Appeal certified that a point of law of general
public importance was involved in its decision, but refused
leave to appeal.
20//2/1973.
Before Lord Widgery, the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice
Cusack and Mr. Justice Croom-Johnson.
Motorists who intend to call evidence showing that special
reasons exist why they should not be disqualified, ought to
notify the prosecution of the intention, the Court stated when
laying down guidelines on the onus and standard of proof and
the practice in establishing special reasons under Section 5 (3)
of the Road Traffic Act, 1962.
Queen's Bench Division; 20/2/1973.
Damages
Before Lord Denning, the Master of the Roils, Lord Justice
Stamp and Lord Justice James.
A young man who was keen to become an airline pilot and
who claimed damages against British European Airways in
respect of the loss of the ends of two fingers on his left hand
while working as a loader at London Airport, but told the trial
Judge that he was confident he could manage the switches and
buttons in spite of his disability had the damages awarded by
the Judge reduced by £1,750 when the Court of Appeal held
that an additional £3,000 awarded for loss of future earning
capacity as an airline pilot was based on speculation and not
on evidence.
Field v. British European Airways Ltd.; Court of Appeal;
28/2/1973.
Discovery
Before Lord Justice Davies, Lord Justice Cairns and Lord
Justice Stamp.
Although the Court has jurisdiction to debar a defendant
from defending because he has failed to give discovery within
the time ordered by the Court, it should not exercise that
power unless there has been previously a peremptory order
requiring discovery by a certain date and providing that in
default the defendant will be debarred.
London and County (A & D) Ltd. v. Mitchison Sons &
Partners; Court of Appeal; 31/1/1973.
Evidence
Before Lord Widgery, the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice
Ashworth and Mr. Justice Bridge.
A police constable who was not an authorised examiner for
the purpose of testing the condition of vehicles on roads under
Section 53 of the Road Traffic Act, 1972, was nevertheless
92