PREVIOUSLY ON THIS THREAD
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
I have now been reliably informed by the owner of the taxi firm involved, that the council took the case to the divisional court for judicial review. The judicial review was against the Magistrates’ Court decision which was included in the IoL article & stated;
‘They also decided to exclude the officer’s evidence under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as the driver had been persuaded to commit the alleged offences and the officer’s evidence was unfair.’
From what I have been told, it is would appear that because of this action by the Magistrates’ Court the council were successful in their judicial review. All that seems to have happened is that the divisional court has given a judicial review judgment in favour of the council, for the case to be re-heard by a different bench at Stratford-upon-Avon Magistrates’ Court, but this time to include the officer’s evidence.
It appears that the divisional court did not agree that the officer’s evidence should have been excluded in the Magistrates’ Court. Therefore, it seems that all that has happened in this case is NOTHING.
The case now starts afresh in the Stratford-upon-Avon Magistrates’ Court at a future date which is yet to be fixed.
It’s only 23 miles down the road from me & I’m going to have a listen when it come up.
AND: In part of the Judicial Review's written judgement it was wrote:
LORD JUSTICE SULLIVAN: . . . .
31. This case perhaps illustrates the difficulties that can arise if magistrates are invited to make such rulings on the basis of submissions alone and without hearing any evidence whatsoever.
32. For these reasons I would answer both of the two questions posed in the case stated in the negative and I would propose that the case be remitted to the Stratford-on-Avon Magistrates' Court for a hearing to proceed before a fresh bench of magistrates.
33. MR JUSTICE OPENSHAW: I entirely agree. I add only this, which is not directed at Mr Burton, who did not appear below and bears no responsibility for what happened. The application made at the Magistrates' Court to exclude the evidence of the local authority officers was made entirely without any advance notice to the court or to the prosecution. This type of forensic ambush should never happen. It is a clear obligation under the overriding objective of the Criminal Procedure Rules to give such notice and the failure to do so is, at best, highly regrettable, and, at worst, a breach of professional obligation to the court and to the other parties and, in my judgment, such conduct should not pass without some specific condemnation.
34. LORD JUSTICE SULLIVAN: Right then, Mr Leigh.
35. MR LEIGH: I am very grateful, my Lord.
36. So far as costs are concerned, it seems there is little I can do because the respondent is -- benefit from a legal aid certificate and I cannot, as a local authority, ask for my costs out of central funds because I am expressly excluded by the provisions of the relevant Act.
37. LORD JUSTICE SULLIVAN: You are not asking for a pools order, are you?
38. MR LEIGH: No, I am not instructed to do so. We considered the point, but one [can] imagine the answer we are going to get, given the circumstances. It is unfortunate. It has cost the authority money to come here to sort out something which, with due respect, should never have arisen in the first place, but your fellow judge has made the point, and no doubt that will go ringing in someone's ears at some point. But at least we have this back on track and no doubt this will be reported somewhere and people will pay attention to it, particularly the comments you made.
39. LORD JUSTICE SULLIVAN: So it is no order as to costs? That is what you are advising us to do? I should think, if that is the invitation, Mr Burton is hardly likely to submit anything to the contrary.
40. MR LEIGH: My Lord understands to try and persuade you would be rather -- one would do one's best, but one imagines I am really knocking on a firmly closed door and I do not want to waste time on something I think is hopeless.
41. LORD JUSTICE SULLIVAN: You are agreed that it should go back and, presumably, that if it goes back it should go back to a fresh bench?
42. MR LEIGH: That would be our view. I know my learned friend indicated that he would want to persuade you not to send it back. I do not know whether he still wants to try and do that, but clearly our case would be, in those circumstances, especially given what your Lordships have said, we would certainly want this to go back to the magistrates and the trial can properly continue.
43. LORD JUSTICE SULLIVAN: There is no advantage, even if it were possible, to get this bench together again and query whether that would be possible, because they hardly embarked on the thing, so it is not as though they have virtually got to the end of a very long and difficult case and it only just remains to tidy up odds and ends with a legal direction. Effectively, it has to start again anyway because no evidence had been given.
44. MR LEIGH: It would be quicker to go back to the magistrates and a fresh bench than try to get the same magistrates all together on the same occasion.
Well this case went back to Magistrates Court on 23rd February 2010, but not to Stratford-upon-Avon.
It went to Nuneaton Magistrates Court instead. And unfortunately, even though I was informed of the date & venue beforehand, I could not attend after all.
However, Brian with a Y has reliably informed me that the outcome was as follows;
Mr Dyde was found guilt of the offences, but (and here’s the bit I can’t understand), the Magistrates gave him an absolute discharge & there was no fine.
Furthermore, the council asked for £5,000 costs, but the Magistrates only awarded them £1,000, which obviously must be paid by Mr Dyde, or the fighting fund that was being set up.
And that’s all I know.
Login
Register
FAQ
