218 / 294
Before Lord Justice Cairns, Lord Justice Stephenson and Mr.
Justice Willis.
A punter who kept £106 of £117 paid to him by a book-
maker which he knew he was not entitled to because of a
mistake on the bookmaker's part was held to be guilty of theft.
Their Lordships, in a reserved judgment, dismissed an appeal
by Donald Gilks, aged 35, a window cleaner, of Burleigh Rd.,
Sutton, against his conviction at South West London Quarter
Sessions (Deputy Chairman, Mr. K. Bruce Campbell, Q.C.),
of stealing.
Regina v Gilks; Court of Appeal; 27/6/1972.
The Court of Appeal (the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice
MacKenna and Mr. Justice Willis) certified that a point of law
of general public importance was involved in the decision
dismissing the appeal of Leslie Arthur Parsons from his con-
viction for driving contrary to Section 1 (1) of the Road Safety
Act, 1967
{The Times,
June 30th). The point was "whether
an Alcotest (R) 80 device of the sort approved by the Breath
Test Device (Approval) (No. 1) Order, 1968, for the purpose
of the breath test defined in Section 7 (1) of the 1967 Act is a
device within Section 7 (1) when used bona fide by a police
officer under Section 2 and when the device before such use is
part green in colour and defective by reason of corrosion so
as to be capable of indicating a proportion of alcohol in the
person's blood on a breath test which exceeds the prescribed
limit and when such a device not so corroded when so used
would not so indicate."
Regina v Parsons; Court of Appeal; 4/7/1972.
Before Lord Widgery, the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice
Willis and Mr. Justice Bridge.
A motorist who drove across Oxford High Street with a slight
inclination to the right in order to go from Turl Street into
Alfred Street did not turn right into High Street and so
commit a criminal offence.
Wright v Howard; Q.B. Division; Court of Appeal.
Before Lord Widgery, the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice
Melford Stevenson and Mr. Justice Milmo.
Fraudulent use of a vehicle excise licence within Section 26
(1) of the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1971, was not proved by
showing that an unlicensed car with a licence belonging to
another car was left on a piece of land which was not a
public road.
Their Lordships dismissed a police appeal from the dismissal
by Cornwall justices of an information charging F. G. Lanyon
with contravening Section 26 (1) (c) by fraudulently using a
certain licence on a car on a piece of land at Trelawney
Estate, Madron, last January.
Section 26 (1) provides: "If any person . . . fraudulently . . .
uses .. . any licence .. . under this Act, he shall be liable . . .
to a fine not exceeding £200 or . . . to imprisonment for a
term not exceeding two years."
Cook v Lanyon; Road Transport; Q.B. Division; 13/7/72.
Before Lord Widgery, the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice
Willis and Mr. Justice Bridge.
No reasonable person sitting in Court when a loader at
Heathrow Airport was tried on charges of obstructing its
proper use and behaving in a disorderly manner could have
had a reasonable suspicion that the Court was biased against
him, even if the justices' clerk had said "We know all about
the loaders at the airport and their thieving." The circum-
stances would not have created a reasonable suspicion of bias
in the mind of any reasonable person.
Regina v Uxbridge Justices ex parte Burbridge; Q R. Divi
sion; 2/6/72.
Defamation
Before Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice
Phillimore and Lord Justice Cairns.
It is improper and highly embarrassing to the defendants
and the Court for plaintiffs who allege that a long newspaper
article is defamatory of them to "throw" the whole article at
them without specifying in the statement of claim what are
the particular passages of which they complain and in what
way they say those passages are defamatory of them. A state-
ment of claim which is defective in those respects cannot stand.
DDSA Pharmaceuticals Ltd* v Times Newspapers Ltd. and
Another; Court of Appeal; 27/6/1972.
EEC
Before Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice
Phillimore and Lord Justice Cairns.
The Courts of this country will not take cognisance of (he
Treaty of Accession to the Treaty of Rome (signed at
Brussels on January 22nd) until its terms have been enacted
in an Act of Parliament. The Treaty was signed on behalf of
the Crown in the exercise of the prerogative as embodied in
the Bill of Rights, 1688.
McWhirter v Attorney-General; Court of Appeal; 30/6/72.
Family
The President held that when the Court was considering an
application for financial provision for either party following
dissolution of marriage it had no power to make more than one
lump sum order.
His Lordship was giving judgment in open court after
hearing in chambers an application by a wife for a further
lump sum order.
C. v C.; Family Division; 13/7/1972.
The Divisional Court of the Family Division dismissed an
appeal by a father from the refusal of justices to vary a
custody order relating to his eldest son, now 16. The justices
had granted custody of all four children of the family to the
mother under the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates
Courts) Act, 1960, after finding the father guilty of persistent
cruelty to the mother.
C. v C.; Court of Appeal; 4/7/1972.
Before Mr. Justice C imming-Bruce.
The view of Professor Cheshire that there was judicial
authority in England that capacity to marry was governed not
by the pre-marriage lex domicilii of each party but by the law
of the intended matrimonia' home was adopted by Mr. Justice
Cumming-Bruce.
His Lordship held, on a preliminary poin' 'hat a marriage
contracted by Mrs. M. I. Radwan, now ol vlolden Road,
Finchley, under Muslim law before the E,* /ptian Consul
General in Paris in 1951 at a time when sh Í was a British
national with an English domicile, to Mr. J. P. Radwan,
whose domicile then was Egyptian, was valid according to
English law. She had petitioned for divorce on the ground of
cruelty.
Radwan v Radwan; Family Division; 18/7/19'"-'.
Gaming and Lotteries
Before Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Cest, Viscount
Dilhorne, Lord Diplock and Lord Salmon.
It is not an essential ingredient of an unlawful lottery that
there should be a fund or prizes in the hands of the promoters
for them to distribute when the prize winners are ascertained
provided the scheme has the overall, object of distributing
money by chance.
Atkinson v Murrell; House of Lords; 5/7/1972.
Landlord and Tenant
Before Lord Denning, the Master ot the Rolls, Lord Justice
Buckley and Lord Justice Cairns.
When money is demanded as rent for a period after the
landlord knows of facts giving rise to a forfeiture, is paid as
rent and accepted as rent, tl.e law regards the demand and
acceptance as unequivocal acts which constitute a waiver of
the forfeiture. This is so notwithstanding that the demand and
acceptance was due to an error in the office of the landlords'
agents and the tenant knew that the landlords wished to end
his tenancy.
In exceptional circumstances the Court, in the exercise of its
discretion under Section 146 of the Law of Property Act, 1925,
can grant relief from forfeiture notwithstanding a tenant's
breach of covenant in unlawfully keeping a brothel on the
premises contrary to Section 33 of the Sexual Offences Act,
1956, and Section 6 of the Sexual Offences Act, 1967.
Central Estates (Belgravia) Ltd. v Woolfar; Court of Appeal;
20/6/1972.
Limitation of Time
Before Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth y-Gest, Lord Pear-
son, Lord Simon of Glaisdale and Lord Salmon.
A workman who contracted asbestosis at work and was
awarded disability benefit for it in 1964 but did not get legal
advice and bring an action against his employers until 1967
because in 1964 the works manager in his non-union factory
wrongly told him that he could not get benefit and bring an
action as well, was held by a majority of the House of Lords
(Lord Reid, Lord Morris and Lord Pearson) to be entitled to
keep an award of £13,700 damages by Mr. Justice Thesiger.
Central Asbestos Co. Ltd. v Dodel; House of Lords; 28/6/72.
- 2 2 2