Magistrates — Jurisdiction — Appellants alleging respondents contravening legislation pertaining to New Forest — Matter being tried in magistrates’ court — Whether magistrates’ court having concurrent jurisdiction with Court of Swainmote — Whether breach of human rights legislation — Appeal allowed
The New Forest is an ancient royal forest, the rights of which are protected by the Courts of Swainmote and Attachment. The verderers are the officers of the courts, deriving statutory powers, including the right to levy fines and fees, from the various New Forest Acts and byelaws. The appellant verderers laid informations against the respondents alleging that they had allowed horses and cattle to be depastured in the New Forest without paying the appropriate marking fees, contrary to the New Forest (Confirmation of the Byelaws of the Verderers of the New Forest) Order 1999.
The matter was heard in the magistrates’ court. The appellants contended that the use of the term “fines to be recovered summarily” in section 25(4) of the New Forest Act 1877 implied that the matter could be heard in either the magistrates’ courts or the Court of Swainmote. The district judge found for the respondents on the ground that she did not have the necessary jurisdiction to try the offence, given that the Court of Swainmote had been set up specifically to deal with offences pertaining solely to the administration of the New Forest, such administration being of no general public interest and not being funded from the public purse. The appellants appealed.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
The district judge had considered the use of the term “summarily” in section 25(4) by comparing it with its use in section 29, where it was clear that it was being used in its dictionary sense of “quickly”. However, she had been in error to do so: the two sections were not comparable. Unlike section 29, which was designed to deal with procedural matters, section 25(4) dealt with criminal matters and was therefore to be construed in accordance with the provisions of section 5 of the Interpretation Act 1978: the use of the term “summarily” was not the same in both sections. On that basis, section 25(4) was referring to a summary offence for the purposes of section 2(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, and the magistrates’ court therefore had concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Swainmote.
The control of animals, their rights of grazing and their effect upon the public amenity of the New Forest were all matters of public interest. Confining such concerns to the jurisdiction of the Court of Swainmote was at variance with the provisions of section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998, and strengthened the conclusion that both courts must have concurrent jurisdiction.
Although the issue had not been specifically argued, given, inter alia, the manner in which the Court of Swainmote imposed and administered fines, it was clear that the court was not a body capable of withstanding criticism regarding its compatibility with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Philip Mott QC and Charles Parry (instructed by Moore & Blatch, of Southampton) appeared for the appellants; Malcolm Gibney (instructed by Jasper & Vincent) appeared for the respondents.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
