| Source: | All England Reporter |
| Publisher Citation: | [2006] All ER (D) 37 (Apr) |
| Court: | Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court) |
| Judge: | Maurice Kay LJ and Tugendhat J |
| Representation | David Perry (instructed by CPS Southwark Trials Unit, Bow Street Section) for the claimant. |
| Stephen Field (instructed by JR Jones) for the interested party. | |
| Judgment Dates: | 4 April 2006 |
Catchwords
Magistrates - Committal proceedings - Committal for trial - Hearsay evidence - Justices deciding evidence insufficient on basis claimant failing to serve required notice - Whether justices erring in law - Effect of subsequent repeal of relevant legislation - Whether committal of interested party for tenth charge constituting abuse of process - Magistrates Court Act 1980, s 5D - , ss 23, 24 - .
The Case
Hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings, including magistrates' courts proceedings were, since the repeal of ss23 and 24 of the Act, governed by the . Accordingly, the justices had erred, inter alia, in basing their decision on the claimant's committal application on the failure of the claimant to serve a hearsay notice under s5D of the Magistrates Act 1980, and that decision would be quashed.
Lexis®Library
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
