Town and Country Planning Act 1971–Alleged unlawful demolition of listed building–Committal to Crown Court–Magistrates’ Courts Act 1952–Bench told of previous conviction–Committal order quashed–Mandamus to justices to hear and determine
In these
proceedings the North Essex Building Co Ltd, estate developers and building
contractors, of Anglian House, Victoria Place, Brightlingsea, Essex, applied
for an order of certiorari to quash an order of Colchester Justices dated
January 29 1976. By that order the applicants were committed for trial at the
Crown Court on an information preferred against them by Tendring District
Council under section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 alleging
that without lawful authority from the Secretary of State for the Environment
they demolished a listed property at Victoria Place, Brightlingsea. The
applicants also sought an order of mandamus directed to the justices requiring
them to hear and determine the information.
Anthony
Scrivener QC and P Surrey (instructed by John Fowler, Oldman & Co, of
Colchester) appeared for the applicants; Raymond Sears QC and J Holt
(instructed by the legal adviser to Tendring District Council) represented the
respondent local authority.
Giving the
first judgment EVELEIGH J said that the ground for the application was that the
justices, who had begun to inquire into the information under section 18(1) of
the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1952, considered, at the invitation of the defence,
whether or not to proceed to summary trial. In the course of that
consideration, the justices heard the prosecution give evidence of a previous
conviction of the defendants. The justices went on to hear further evidence and
then committed the respondents to the Crown Court for trial.
It was the
general policy that in cases before justices no information concerning previous
convictions should be disclosed in any form before trial. In the present case
the previous conviction was disclosed. The reason for that, according to an
affidavit filed on behalf of the justices, was that under the provisions of
Schedule 2 to the Magistrates’ Courts Act, paragraph 7, the provisions relating
to committal for sentence did not apply to corporations. In the case of
individuals justices had power to try summarily and, after conviction, to
commit for sentence under section 29 if they felt a greater sentence should be
imposed than they had power to impose. When exercising their powers under
section 29 they could hear about character and antecedents. Section 29 did not
apply to corporations, but the justices had taken the view that it was right
for them to be informed of any previous conviction which they could consider in
deciding whether or not to commit a corporation for trial.
The court was
concerned with the general principle. Justices, when asked to consider
committing for trial, should not be told of any previous conviction. The
Magistrates’ Courts Act firmly stated that section 29 did not apply to
corporations and there was no reason why the general principle preventing
disclosure of previous convictions before trial should be ignored. The
applications should be allowed.
LORD WIDGERY
and WIEN J agreed that the applications should be allowed. Accordingly, it was
ordered that certiorari should go to quash the committal and that mandamus
should be granted to order the justices to hear and determine the information
according to law. The applicants were awarded costs out of central funds.
