The Gazette 1961 - 64

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 to 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 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- 35 be quashed. (Regina v. Edwards). Non-disclosure to Court by Counsel. Lord Justice Holroyd Pearce, Lord