373 / 736
When dismissing with costs a motorist's appeal against
conviction for driving with excess blood alcohol, the
Divisional Court said that the case raised a point of
great importance and intimated that, if possible, an
appeal should go to the House of Lords.
The point is: "Whether, on the true construction of
section 2(1) of the 1967 Act, in cases where a suspicion
arises with respect to a person driving while the vehicle
is in motion, that person, if immediately pursued by a
constable in uniform, may be required to provide a
specim of breath for the breath test notwithstanding
that, at the conclusion of the pursuit, he is no longer a
'person driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle
on a road or other public place'."
Ct. of Appeal Sasson v. Taverner.
The safeguard against oppression and the denial of
natural justice in all extradition cases in the unfettered
discretion conferred by the Extradition Act, 1870, on
the Secretary of State for Home Affairs to refuse to sur
render a person whenever in his view it would be wrong,
unjust, or oppressive to do so. But a magistrate who
has sufficient evidence before him to commit a person
to prison pending extradition cannot refuse to commit
because for some other reason it would be oppressive or
contrary to natural justice to do so.
House of Lords Atkinson v. United States Government
and others.
The test for ascertaining whether a defendant charged
with a major offence under section 6 (3) of the Criminal
Law Act, 1967, was formulated by the Court in reserved
judgement allowing an appeal by David Springfield, alias
John Darryl Eastlake, who was convicted at the Central
Criminal Court inFebruary of common assault on an
indictment which charged simple robbery in December,
1968, contrary to section 23(1) (a) of the Larceny Act,
1916, and did not set out any particulars of the matters
relied on. Atwo months' suspended sentence had been
passed.
The test formulated was: "To see whether it is a
necessary step towards establishing a major offence to
prove the commission of the lesser offence; in other
words, is the lesser offence an essential ingredient of the
major one?"
Ct. of Appeal 31/10/69 Regina v. Springfield
Butchers who sold at one of their branches a Danish
oven ready turkey marked "Norfolk King Turkey" were
entitled to rely on section 24(1) of the Trade Descrip
tions Act, 1968, for their defence because the offence was
committed because of "the act or default of another
person", the shop manager, and because they had exer
cised "all due care".
Ct. of Appeal 8/12/69 Beckett v. Kingston Bros. (But
chers) Ltd.
It is not the duty of each director to supervise the
running of a company. The Court so held when allowing
the appeal of a director of a company which ran a
gaming club where chemin-de-fer was played without
a licence, against a conviction for an offence under
section 305
(3) of the Customs and Exise Act, 1952,
which provides that where a company does not hold the
appropriate licence and the offence
is proved to be
attributable to any neglect by a director, the director,
as well as the company, should be deemed guilty of the
offence.
Ct. of Appeal 31 /10/69 Huckerby v. Elliot
The police have no power to retain passports which
they have taken and have not returned simply because
they wish to prevent the holders from leaving the country
pending police inquiries may be involved. If they have
no grounds for arresting the holders they should be
allowed to leave.
Ct. of Appeal 31/10/69 Ghani and others v. lones.
A court of summary jurisdiction which has already
unequivocally accepted a plea of guilty by a person
accused of an offence is not in law debarred from per
mitting the accused to change his plea to not guilty at
any time before the case is disposed of by sentence. That
rule( which has applied for generations on indistment,
applies equally in magistrates' courts; and decisions of
the Queen's Bench Divisional Court to the contrary
effect since 1964 were based on a misapprehension of
the law and must be overruled.
House of Lords Smith (an infant) by Parsons (his next
friend) v. Manchester City Recorder and others.
A company must be in liquidation before a prosecution
can be initiated under section 332(3) of the Companies
Act, 1948, in respect of alleged fraululent trading against
any person knowingly a party to such fraud while the
company was a going concern.
House of Lords 27/11/69 Director of Public Prosecu
tions v. Schildkamp.
The conviction of a driver who refused to provide
specimens for a laboratory test contrary to section 3 of
the Road Safety Act, 1967, was upheld by Queen's
Bench Divisional Court (the Lord Chief Justice, Mr.
Justice Ashworth and Mr. Justice Cantley) even though
26 minutes after his refusal he volunteered to provide
the required specimen.
Q.B.D. 4/11/69 Procaj v. lohnstone.
When an order is sought to commit a person to prison
for contempt of court, the court before making the order
must be satisfied "beyond reasonable doubt" that the
contempt has been committed, and the person seeking the
order must discharge the high burden applicable in the
criminal courts of proving beyond reasonable doubt that
the offence has been committed, for contempt of court
is in the nature of a criminal matter for which a person
may be sent to prison for an indefinite time.
Ct. of Appesal 21/7/69 In Re Bramblevale Ltd.
Damages, awards and judgements
The devaluation of sterling between the date of the
termination of salvage services and the date of the award
cannot properly be
taken into account in fixing the
amount of the award.
Ct. of Appeal 9/10/69 The Teh Hu.
When a warrant for possession of premises originally
authorized also a levy on goods in the sum of £87-5
being £83 for mesne profits and £4-5 for the costs of the
warrant, but was subsequently suspended "as to money
judgement" and the bailiff levied on goods to a value
consistent only with £87-5, the execution was so ex
cessive as to constitute a tortious wrong even though no
malice on the part of the bailiff was proved.
Ct. of Appeal 3/11/69 Moore v. Lambeth County Courts
Registrar and others.
87