captain cab wrote:
If it was a Judicial review originally, why did it go to a mere (and lowly.....take note sussex) magistrate?
Was the appeal on something different?
CC
Mr Sussex posted the link to the written Judicial Review judgment. Tell me you've read it.
The original Stratford-upon-Avon Magistrates Court decided to exclude the evidence of the local authority officers.
In the written Judicial Review judgment it stated;
2. The magistrates dismissed the informations because the appellant offered no evidence. The appellant offered no evidence because the magistrates had excluded, under section 78 of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the evidence of two undercover investigating officers who were employed by the appellant, Mr Jones and Ms Goodman. The magistrates excluded the evidence of the two officers because they concluded that the respondent had been persuaded to commit the offences alleged in the informations.
3. The magistrates posed two questions for the opinion of this court:
"(a) Were we correct in law to conclude that Mr Dyde had been persuaded to commit the offences?
(b) Were we correct to exclude the evidence of Mr Jones and Ms Goodman under section 78 of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for this reason?"
The Judicial Review was brought by the council to establish whether the Magistrates Court at Stratford-upon-Avon were correct to exclude the evidence as in point (b) above.
The Judicial Review concluded that the Magistrates Court were erronious in their procedures & sent the case back to the Magistrates Court for them to re-hear the case, having being given the correct legal guidance by the High Court, i.e. that the council officials' evidence should not have been excluded at the first Magistrates Court hearing.
Login
Register
FAQ
