10 / 294
they were letting it under a hire purchase agreement to one of
his customers, the original sellers' retaking of the car from the
dealer gave them a good title to it for the transaction was
within the protection of Section 25 (1) of the Sale of Goods
Act, 1893.
Their Lordships so held by construing the sub-section in
accordance with a Privy Council decision on an Australian
appeal and treating as no longer good law earlier English
decisions on the meaning of the sub-section.
[Worcester Works Finance Ltd. v Gooder Engineering Co.
Ltd.; C. of A.; 20/7/1971.]
On an appeal from a Minister's decision over an issue whether
°
r
not a person is employed under a contract of service, the
Court must examine the decision to see whether it contains a
false proposition of law ex facie; whether it is supported by no
evidence; and whether the conclusion reached is one that no
Person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the rele-
vant law could have come to in the determination under
appeal. The Court does not have again to balance the argu-
ments pro and con and give separate factors and weigh which
the Court thinks should or should not be given to them; the
balancing operation is a matter for the Minister.
It was recognised nowadays that factors other than simply
the degree of control exercised had to be taken into account in
separating a contract of service from a contract for services.
[Global Plant Ltd. v Secretary of State for Health and
social Security; Q.B.D.; 11/6/1971.]
Where an important actor agrees to play the leading role in a
one-man play" and he subsequently repudiates the contract,
which repudiation is accepted, the producers are entitled to
recover whatever expenditure they have incurred which would
be in the contemplation of the parties as likely to result from
the breach. Pre-contract expenditure as well as post-contract
expenditure is recoverable.
[Anglia Television Ltd. v Reed; C. of A.; 28/7/1971.]
See under
Conflict of Laws;
Coast Lines Ltd. v Hudig and
veder Chartering N.V.
Crime
Although power exists to extend the time within which an
applicant must renew to the full court an application for leave
to appeal after being notified of the single judge's refusal to
grant it, the power will be exercised only rarely. The only issue
on such an application is whether the applicant has an excuse
•or not having renewed his application within the fourteen days
prescribed by the Criminal Appeal Rules, 1968.
[Regina v Doherty; C. of A.; 29/7/1971.]
Where an accused person elects to be tried by jury on a charge
in respect of which he could not have been committed for trial
without his election, it is not unlawful for the charge to be
L
er
!
d i n t h e
indictment, or for other counts to be added
e
ij
o r n o t i n
res
P
ect
alleged offences for which he
could not otherwise have been tried on indictment in the
absence of his own election.
. .
However, a count cannot lawfully be added unless it is
founded on facts or evidence disclosed in any examination or
deposition taken before a justice in accordance with the
P-viso to Section 2 (2)o f the Administration of Justice
(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1933, and the court has inher-
jurisdiction to ensure that the alteration of the original
ent j ri i ti t
r t t t lt r ti i m n i i
when it becomes a count in the indictment, or the
addition of further counts even if they are founded on evidence
m the depositions, is not unfair.
[Regina v Nisbet; C. of A.; 6/7/1971.]
The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Megaw, Mr. Justice
Ueoffrey Lane and Mr. Justice Kilner Brown) certified that a
Point of law of general public importance was involved in the
decision (
The Times,
July 7th) but did not consider that it
W a
l o ne which ought to be considered by the House of Lords.
The question is "Whether in a case in which the accused has
oeen charged with an offence to which Section 25 of the
Magistrates' Court Act, 1952, applies and elects to be tried on
indictment, it is lawful to add to that indictment oher counts
charging offences founded on facts or evidence disclosed in the
depositions to which offences Section 25 applies but in respect
fhe accused has made no election."
[Regina v. Nisbet; C. of A. ; 16/7/1971.]
A co-defendant in a criminal trial may cross-examine a defen-
dant who gives evidence in his own defence even if he has not
implicated the co-defendant. Such cross-examination is allowed
n
R?
ct
>
ce
and is necessary if justice is to be done.
[Regina v Hilton; C. of A.; 22/7/1971.]
The necessity of framing indictments under Section 22 of the
Theft Act, 1968, in accordance with the terms of the section
was emphasized by the Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Roskill,
Mr. Justice Geoffrey Lane and Mr. Justice Watkins) when
allowing an appeal against conviction. The indictment alleged
that the defendant ". . . did dishonestly handle certain stolen
goods [lamb carcasses] knowing or believing the same to be
stolen goods".
The section reads: "(1) A person handles stolen goods if
(otherwise than in the course of stealing) knowing or believing
them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods, or
dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal,
disposal or realisation by or for the . . ."
[Regina v Marshall; Q.B.D.; 22/12/1971.]
Oral admissions and a written statement made by Nicholas
Anthony Prager to police officers when he was questioned at
Doncaster police station were held to have been made volun-
tarily. The court said that even on the assumption that Rule 2
of the Judges' Rules, 1964, relating to the administering of a
caution, had been breached, there was no reason to hold that
the Lord Chief Justice, who presided at the trial, had erred
in exercising his discretion in admitting them.
[Regina v Prager; C. of A.; 11/11/1971.]
Intention to occupy was not a necessary constituent of the
offence of forcible entry, their Lordships held when dismissing
appeals by Raymond and Derek Brittain and Charles
Henderson, all now in prison, against their convictions at
Maidstone Assizes last February (Mr. Justice John Stephenson)
for forcible entry contrary to the Forcible Entry Act, 1381.
They had been sentenced to nine months imprisonment each.
[Regina v Brittain; C. of A.; 9/12/1971.]
A judge was hekl to have been wrong in refusing to admit a
statement made by the wife of an accused when he was in
custody which the defence wished to produce to rebut a prose-
cution suggestion that her evidence had been concocted by her
and the accused.
[Regina v Oyesiku; C. of A.; 14/12/1971.]
The court held that evidence that an accused person had
previously pleaded guilty to the same charge might be admitted
at the discretion of the judge in a subsequent trial, but such
evidence could be admitted on rare occasions when the
probative value of the plea exceeded its prejudicial effect.
[Court of Appeal; 26/11/1971.]
In cases of murder great care must be taken to see that there
is no miscarriage of justice, but there is no principle that the
proviso to Section 13 (1) of the Jamaican Judicature (Appel-
late Jurisdiction) Law, 1962, which provides "that the court
may, notwithstanding that they are of opinion that the point
raised in the appeal might be decided in favour of the appel-
lant, dismiss the appeal if they consider that no substantial
miscarriage of justice has actually occurred", can never be
applied in murder cases, nor can it be that for the application
of the proviso there cannot be any possible criticism of the
summing-up.
[Anderson v The Queen; Privy Council; 30/9/1971.]
A man who ordered drinks in a public house and showed the
barmaid some banknotes but afterwards said falsely that he
could not pay because he had lost his money failed in an
appeal against conviction for obtaining a pecuniary advantage
by deception, contrary to Section 16 (1) of the Theft Act, 1968.
[Hucknott v Curd; 16/6/1971.]
A person can be charged and convicted under Section 4 (1) of
the Criminal Law Act, 1967, with doing an act to impede the
arrest or prosecution of a person whom he knows or believes to
have committed an arrestable offence notwithstanding that he
did not know the nature of the particular offence committed.
[Regina v Morgan; C. of A.; 23/11/1971.]
A man who was found in possession of tablets which he had
thought had been destroyed and which he found ten months
later in a drawer in his bedroom won his appeal against con-
viction under Section 1 (1) of the Drugs (Prevention of
Misuse) Act, 1964.
Peter Buswell had been convicted at Reading Borough
Sessions (deputy recorder, Mr. G. B. Hutton).
Section 1 (1) provides: " . . . it shall not be lawful for a
person to have in his possession a substance for the time being
specified in the schedule to this Act unless—(a) it is in his
possession by virtue of the issue of a prescription . . ."
[Regina v Buswell; 12/11/1971.]