R v Mansfield Justices, ex parte Sharkey (2024)

[QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION] REGINA v. MANSFIELD JUSTICES, Ex parte SHARKEY REGINA v. SAME, Ex parte HUNT REGINA v. SAME, Ex parte BARRON REGINA v. SAME, Ex parte FRETWELL REGINA v. SAME, Ex parte ROBINSON REGINA v. SAME, Ex parte SWATTEN REGINA v. SAME, Ex parte GROVE REGINA v. SAME, Ex parte FELLOWS REGINA v. SAME, Ex parte ANDERSON 1984 Oct. 8; 12 Lord Lane C.J., Stuart-Smith and Leggatt JJ.

Justices - Bail _ Conditions of bail - Public order offences by miners picketing local collieries - Applications for bail - Grant of bail with condition preventing miners picketing in area - Justices relying on their local knowledge in imposing condition - Whether proper exercise of justices' discretion to impose condition - Bail Act 1976 (c. 63), s. 3(6), Sch. 1, paras. 2, 8

During a dispute between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers, the majority of miners were on strike but some miners continued to work particularly in the East Midlands coal field. Miners on strike, including the nine applicants from the South Yorkshire coal field, picketed the collieries in the East Midlands area in large numbers. The nine applicants were arrested while picketing and charged with threatening behaviour contrary to section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936 or with obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty contrary to section 51(3) of the Police Act 1964. The justices, when considering granting bail to each applicant, had regard to the numerous outbreaks of disorder on the picketlines and, in order to prevent the commission of a further offence by the applicant while on bail, decided to act in his case, as they had acted in the case of other miners, under the provisions of section 3(6) of, and paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to, the Bail Act 1976^F1 by imposing the condition that each applicant did “not visit any premises or place for the purpose of picketing or demonstrating in connection with the current trade dispute between the N.U.M. and the N.C.B. other than peacefully to picket or demonstrate at his usual place of employment.”

On applications for judicial review by the nine applicants and for orders of certiorari to quash the grant of bail and orders of mandamus directing the justices to grant unconditional bail:—

Held, dismissing the applications, that, although a court in refusing to grant bail under paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bail Act 1976 had to have substantial grounds for believing an offence would be committed if bail were granted, the test for imposing a condition on the grant of bail under section 3(6) and paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 was whether the court perceived a real risk of a further offence being committed; that, in determining whether it was necessary to impose the condition on the grant of bail to each applicant, the justices were entitled to use their knowledge of the situation at local collieries where the picketing to prevent miners from working was by intimidation and threats and the presence of large numbers of pickets; and that, in those circumstances, the individual circumstances and good character of each applicant was irrelevant once the justices were satisfied that the imposition of the condition to the grant of bail was necessary to prevent each individual applicant from joining the pickets at the collieries and committing offences against public order while on bail (post, pp. 1337D–F, 1338C, 1339H–1340F).

Per curium. (i) The practice of putting into the dock together defendants who have been arrested on different occasions or at different places is to be discouraged (post, p. 1340G–H).

(ii) It does a bench of justices no credit if their clerk is affixing standard conditions to bail forms while applications for unconditional bail are being made (post, p. 1340H).

The following cases are referred to in the judgment:

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 K.B. 223; [1947] 2 All E.R. 680, C.A.

Moles, In re [1981] Crim.L.R. 170

The following additional case was cited in argument:

British Oxygen Co. Ltd. v. Board of Trade [1971] A.C. 610; [1970] 3 W.L.R. 488; [1970] 3 All E.R. 165, H.L.(E.)

APPLICATIONS for judicial review.

In each case the applicant sought judicial review of the order of the Mansfield justices granting the applicant bail on condition that he did “not visit any premises or place for the purpose of picketing or demonstrating in connection with the current trade dispute between the N.U.M. and the N.C.B. other than peacefully to picket or demonstrate at his usual place of employment.”

The relief sought was, inter alia, an order of certiorari to quash the justices' decision to grant conditional bail and an order of mandamus requiring the justices to grant unconditional bail.

The first three applicants, Stephen James Sharkey, Peter David Hunt and Geoffrey Barron, appeared before the justices on 25 July 1984 on charges under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936. After the justices had dealt with the first applicant's hearing for bail the chairman sat alone and heard the other two applications. The fourth applicant, Brian Fretwell, appeared before the justices on 11 July 1984 on a charge under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936 and was further charged with obstructing the police officer in the execution of his duty, contrary to section 51(3) of the Police Act 1964. The fifth applicant, Paul Robinson, appeared before the justices on 2 August 1984 on a charge under section 51(3) of the Police Act 1964. In each of those cases, the applicant applied for judicial review on the grounds, inter alia, that (1) by reason of section 3(3) and (6) of the Bail Act 1976 and paragraphs 8 and 2 of Schedule 1 to the Act of 1976, the applicant was entitled to unconditional bail unless the court had been satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would commit an offence if granted unconditional bail and that the imposition of the condition was necessary to prevent the commission of such a further offence; (2) no material had been placed before the justices, either by way of evidence or otherwise, which could have satisfied them that the applicant was likely to commit any further offence, or upon which they could have concluded that the imposition of the condition was necessary; (3) alternatively, in deciding to make the applicant's bail conditional the justices had taken into account matters which they should not have done and failed to take into account matters which they should have done. The applications for relief stated that the condition of bail imposed upon the applicant was identical to that imposed upon other striking miners who were arrested. The condition itself had been copied in cyclostyled form and was readily available to the clerk of the court. It was regularly appended to the Bail Act bail forms prior to the hearing. The imposition of that condition upon the applicant appeared to be as a result of a policy pursued by the justices sitting in the Mansfield and other Nottinghamshire magistrates' courts, in relation to all striking miners arrested during the course of the current miners' strike. The justices had fettered their discretion by an apparently predetermined policy to grant bail upon the condition except in exceptional circumstances.

The sixth applicant, Martin Swatten, appeared before the justices on 27 June 1984 on a charge under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936. The seventh applicant, John Grove, appeared before the justices on 26 June 1984 on a charge under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936. The eighth applicant, Graham Paul Fellows, appeared before the justices on 29 June 1984 on a charge under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936. The ninth applicant, James George Anderson, appeared before the justices on 14 June 1984 on a charge under section 51(3) of the Police Act 1964. In each case, the applicant applied for judicial review on the grounds, inter alia, that (a) the condition imposed was unlawful, unnecessary and contrary to section 1(6), 3(6) and paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the Bail Act 1976; (b) there was a lack of any individual justification given to the court for such a condition to be imposed on the applicant; (c) the clerk of the court was preparing the forms of conditional bail whilst submissions were still being heard for the applicant; (d) the imposition of the condition in question was pursuant to an apparent policy to impose that condition on all striking miners save in exceptional circumstances: the justices thereby fettered their discretion.

The facts are stated in the judgment.

John Macdonald Q.C. and James Wood for the applicants.

Brian Appleby Q.C. and Alexandra Scott for the prosecutor.

John Laws as amicus curiae.

Cur. adv. vult.

12 October. LORD LANE C.J. read the following judgment of the court. These applications for judicial review by way of certiorari and mandamus directed to the Mansfield justices arise out of the current troubles at various collieries in the East Midlands. There are nine applicants. All of them are coal miners. All are on strike. All are of good character. Some have been charged with offences against the Public Order Act 1936 and some with obstructing the police and other offences. All were remanded on bail by the justices. In each case a condition was imposed in the following terms:

“Not to visit any premises or place for the purpose of picketing or demonstrating in connection with the current trade dispute between the N.U.M. and the N.C.B. other than peacefully to picket or demonstrate at his usual place of employment.”

Mr. Macdonald, appearing on behalf of the applicants, bases his arguments upon the following submissions. (1) The condition was imposed without any proper consideration of the individual circumstances of the applicants. (2) The condition was imposed when there was insufficient material before the justices to justify it. (3) Whilst accepting that a bail application is an informal...