About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

148 J.P.N. 497 (1984)
Issue 32

handle is hein.journals/cljw148 and id is 687 raw text is: LONDON, SATURDAY, AUGUST 11, 1984 Vol. 148 No. 31 Pages 497-512 Justice of the Peace Offices LITTLE LONDON CHICHESTER, SUSSEX Editor: Brian Harris, O.B., Q.C. LL.B. The Journal for the Practitioner in the Magistrates' Courts and the Crown Court Established 1837 Registered at the General Post Office as a Newspaper Price £1 notes of the week dealing with offences triable way. Committal for Trial or Sentence? The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 gives to a magistrates' court wide powers to change from committal pro- ceedings to summary trial and vice versa, yet these powers are not without their bounds. In a note in Criminal Jurisdiction of Magistrates, 8th edn., at p.177, it is stated, Presumably there is no power to change over (from sum- mary trial to committal proceedings) following a plea of guilty. This view of the law has now been confirmed by a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench in R. v. Dudley Magistrates' Court, ex parte Gillard (1984) July 28. Section 25(2) of the Act of 1980 states that: Where the court has . . begun to try the information summarily, the court may, at any time before the con- clusion of the evidence for the pros- ecution, discontinue the summary trial and proceed to inquire into the information as examining justices and, on doing so, may adjourn the hearing without remanding the ac- cused. Apparently, the Dudley justices had discontinued the summary hearing of an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm to which the defendant had pleaded guilty and purported to commit him to stand his trial at the Crown Court. Kennedy, J, appears to have based his decision on the words at any time before the conclusion of the evidence for the prosecution and the decision in R. v. Grant (1936) 26 Cr. App. R. 8, which was to the effect that a magistrates' court had no power to commit for trial once it had registered a conviction. Accordingly, s.25(2) did not empower the court to discontinue the summary hearing of an offence and commit the defendant for trial once a plea of guilty had been entered. Stephen Brown, J, agreeing, added that if the prosecutor's view were accepted, the power of a magistrates' court to commit for sentence would be unnecessary. This underlines the deli- cate balance of relations between the power to commit for trial and the power to commit for sentence, which turns essentially upon the mode of trial decision. Under the present law, it is essential that magistrates make proper inquiry into the appropriate mode of trial of any offence triable either way because, once they have decided upon summary trial, their powers thereafter to commit for sentence are confined to the character and antecedents of the offender so that they may not, for example, commit for sentence an of- fender without previous convictions or other antecedents which justify this course. This rather complex frame- work derives from the early days of the magistrates' jurisdiction. It is about time that the relationship between summary trial and trial on indictment was looked at afresh, in particular the method of Amnesty Considerable changes can now be effected in very simple ways. The con- ception of an amnesty is foreign to English ears. The Polish Government has recently announced permission to release from prison a number of members of the trade union Solidarity and also a number of prisoners convicted of anti- social crimes. Such actions are designed to show the Government in a good light. The Home Secretary has permitted what in one sense might also be des- cribed as a partial amnesty. Section 60(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 allows the Secretary of State to release on licence a person serving a sentence of imprisonment (other than persons serving life imprisonment or youth custody, for whom different provisions apply) after he or she has served not less than one third of the sentence or the specified period, namely 12 months or such period not more than 12 months, as the Secretary of State may by order provide whichever expires the later. The release is subject to the recommendation of the Parole Board. Section 60(1) was altered by s.33(a)(i) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982. The expression twelve months was altered to the specified period and the specified period was defined in s.1A as twelve months or such period, not more than twelve months, as the Sec- retary of State considers appropriate. By the Eligibility for Release on Licence Order 1983 (S.I. 1983 No. either ytl jr, t7 FtOi t

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most