The Gazette 1961

from equities the appellant was entitled to an order

for specific performance (Barclays Bank

Breen,

Irish Law Times Reports, vol. XCVI, page 179.)

Misconduct of Barrister.

Lord Jenkins, Lord Guest and Lord Pearce in

the Privy Council dismissed this petition of Varkey.,

Abraham, Barrister of Gray's Inn, for special leave

to appeal from a judgment of her Majesty's Full

Court in the Persian Gulf dated June 14, 1962, in so

far as it dismissed his appeal against his conviction

by Her Majesty's Chief Court for the Persian Gulf

(Bahrein) on February 5, 1962, on two charges of

wilfully doing an act tending to pervert the ad

ministration of justice contrary to section 143

(a)

of the Penal Code.

Thepetitioner had been sentenced to nine months'

simple imprisonment on each charge, the sentences

to r-un concurrently.

The first charge was that when acting as counsel

for Abdul Puri in certain criminal proceedings

pending against him in the court in Bahrein, the

petitioner, at a meeting held in Puri's house for the

purpose of considering

the defence, counselled

persons present to give such evidence as he might

suggest they should give in favour of Puri. The

second charge was that he instructed a potential

witness in the proceedings against Puri to conceal

from the court that he (the petitioner) was present

at the meeting in Puri's house.

Mr. Dingle Foot, Q.C., who appeared for the

petitioner, said that the main point he made was that

both in the judgments of the trial judge and the full

court the judges had almost completely ignored the

substance of the defence. The judge in the Chief

Court sat without a jury and was therefore himself in

the position of being both judge and jury, but in his

judgment, while he did justice to the case for the

prosecution, he omitted almost completely

the

principal matters which were relied upon on behalf

of the accused.

Lord Jenkins, after consultation, announced that

their Lordships would humbly advise her Majesty

that the petition should be dismissed. (The Times,

Friday, October 26, 1962).

Solicitor to pay costs.

The Divisional Court (Lord Chief Justice, Mr.

Justice Gorman and Mr. Justice Salmon) allowed

this appeal of Leonard Abrahamson against the

decision of the justices for Glamorgan sitting at

Cowbridge, that two informations had been preferred

by him against Eric Jutson out of time. The first

information alleged that he had aided and abetted

Peter Jutson to drive a motor car without having a

driving licence;

the second information alleged

that he permitted a motor car to be used on a road

without a policy of insurance.

The Lord Chief Justice said that on February 14,

1961

five weeks after the alleged offences, two

informations were

laid against

the respondent

and

the summonses

issued. Unfortunately,

the

respondent could not be found and those summonses

were not served until September 18, 1961.

It was most unfortunate that at the trial the

solicitor representing the respondent had taken a

thoroughly bad point and boldly asserted that the

proceedings were barred by lapse of time.

The first information came within section 104 of

the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, and by that section

it had to be laid within six months of the offence.

The second information came within section 244 of

the Road Traffic Act, 1960, which provided :

" Summary proceeding for an offence .

(a)

may

be brought within a period of six months from the

date of the commission of the alleged offence ".

The only question was :

When are summary

proceedings

" brought" ?

his

Lordship's

judgment they were brought when the information

was laid. The case must go back to the justices to

be heard and determined.

Mr. Justice Gorman and Mr. Justice Salmon

agreed.

The Lord Chief Justice said that the prosecution

were entitled to costs, which the Court had fixed at

guineas, and directed that

the

respondent's

provincial solicitor should pay them personally.

When the legal aid costs were taxed the provincial

solicitor should receive no contribution. (Solicitors'

Journal, November 2nd, 1962, p. 880).

Justices changing their minds :

order of Certiorari to

quash dismissal of prosecution.

The Divisional Court on this application by the

prosecutor, Derek Final, granted an order of

certiorarito

quash a decision of Essex justices sitting

at Chingford on June 26, 1962, whereby they

dismissed an

information alleging

that Arthur

Thomas Keen, of Centre Drive, Epping, permitted

to be used on a road a motor vehicle parts of which,

namely, the rear axle securing mechanism, were in

such condition that danger was likely to be caused,

contrary to regulation 73 and 104 of Motor Vehicles

(Construction and Use) Regulations, 1955.

The

Court also granted an order of

mandamus,

requiring

the justices to record a conviction and a fine of £3.

The Lord Chief Justice said that at the hearing

before the justices, after the chairman had announced

the decision of the Court to the effect that the

defendant would be fined £3

for the offence,

the solicitor appearing for the defendant argued that