||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 37 (Apr)
||Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court)
Maurice Kay LJ and Tugendhat J
||David Perry (instructed by CPS Southwark Trials Unit, Bow Street Section) for the claimant.
||Stephen Field (instructed by JR Jones) for the interested party.
||4 April 2006
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 - .
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.
- 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