The Gazette 1961 - 64

from equities the appellant was entitled to an order for specific performance (Barclays Bank v. 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" ? In 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 15 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 68