The Gazette 1961

try and get business for the bank or tout for

customers, and certainly in other respects he could

not be said to be performing his duties as a manager

while he was there. The phrase " to foster local

contacts " was very vague. No doubt it was a

useful formula so long as it did not have to be

further expanded.

The natural intention of the

appellant's superiors was that if he belonged to the

club it gave him a certain social status and he would

be acceptable in that sort of society.

It seemed to

his Lordship that one could not divide up the

appellant's uses of the club by saying that when he

took one particular person to luncheon he was

acting as bank manager and on other occasions

he was not. When he paid his subscription was it

necessarily incurred in the performance of his duties

as a bank manager ? The answer was No.

Lord Justice Harman said that he confessed to

finding some of the arguments addressed to the

Court on the subject extremely distasteful, and it

would be better if he said no more than that he

agreed that the appeal should be dismissed.

Lord Justice Donovan said that the test was not

whether the employer imposed the expense but

whether the duties did, in the sense that, irrespective

of what the employer might prescribe, the duties

could not be performed without incurring

the

particular outlay. He agreed that the appeal should

be dismissed.

Unfair Trial.

The Court of Criminal Appeal (Mr. Justice

Ashworth, Mr. Justice Paull and Mr. Justice Elwes)

quashed the conviction of Ronald Edwards of

Liverpool, upon charges of stealing a car and

obtaining a valuable security by false pretences, on

the ground that the conduct of his trial by Judge

Laskl, sitting as recorder at Liverpool Crown Court

on 16th December, 1960 was not satisfactory.

Mr. Justice Ashworth, giving the judgment of

the Court, said that the recorder seemed to have

made up his mind at an early stage that there was no

possible defence and that Edwards' counsel, who was

doing her best to put his case to the prosecution

witnesses was wasting time. When the recorder

came to sum-up he poured further scorn on the

defence and made, in effect, a telling speech for the

prosecution. It was true that he had admitted having

done so and had directed the jury they were not

bound to agree with him, but by then the damage

had been done.

If this conviction were allowed to stand, Edwards

might rightly consider that, guilty though he might

well have been, he was deprived of that priceless

asset which should be afforded to all accused persons

—a fair trial. If the conviction were quashed, there

was strong ground for supposing that dishonesty

would, in this instance, have escaped punishment.

Faced with a choice between two evils, the Court

felt that the most important factor in the matter

was the maintenance of fairness and impartiality on

the part of a judge and, as both these qualities were

absent at this man's trial, the Court was constrained

to allow the appeal. The grounds of appeal were

that throughout the trial the recorder indicated his

adverse view of Edwards. It was also said that the

recorder's frequent interruptions made it difficult for

Edwards' counsel to place the defence before the

jury. Although Edwards' defence might be regarded

as somewhat flimsy, the right to have it placed

before the jury without interruption was denied him.

The jury's 45-minute retirement in a simple case

might well have been the outward sign of the

reaction

the recorder's behaviour, and

the

summing-up on the burden of proof might well have

given the jury the impression that they need not

pay too much attention to it. The conviction would

be quashed. (Regina

Edwards).

Non-disclosure to Court by Counsel.

Lord

Justice Holroyd Pearce, Lord

Justice

Willmer, and Lord Justice Pearson allowed this

appeal by Mr. Alan Meek of Wetherby Mansions,

Earls Court, from the judgment of Mr. Justice

Streatfeild

(The Times,

22nd October, 1960) on the

verdict of a jury for the defendant, Mr. Richard

Fleming, of the Metropolitan Police in the plaintiff's

action for damages for alleged assault and false

imprisonment arising out of events following his

arrest on Guy Fawkes Night, 5th November, 1958.

Their Lordships, granting leave on the motions

to adduce fresh evidence, ordered that there should

be a new trial of the action. They also ordered that,

in addition to Mr. Meek having the costs of the

appeal and the motions to adduce fresh evidence,

Mr. Fleming should pay the costs of the first trial

in any event.

Lord Justice Holroyd Pearce said that the real

ground of this appeal was that at the trial the rank

and status of the defendant was by implication

represented to be that of chief inspector (when in

fact between the date of the matters complained of

in the action and the date of the trial he had been

reduced to the rank of station sergeant by reason of

misconduct), and that the credit of the parties was

a crucial issue at the trial; further, that the defendant

deceived or misled the Court and thereby occasioned

a miscarriage of justice.

It was conceded that the

facts were known to the defendant's legal advisers

and his counsel and that as a matter of deliberate

policy they were not put before the Court.

It was clear that the trial judge reasonably con-