J. P’s. CENSURED

Greymouth Evening Star, 13 June 1936, Page 8

J. P’s. CENSURED

MAN INNOCENT, BUT CONVICTED

LONDON, May 2

A decision of Bognor Regis magistrates that vras 'described as "an outrage” was set aside by .a King’s Bench Divisional-Court yes.ter.day. Mr. Kenneth Harold Roden, a builder, of Longford-road, Bognor. appealed against a decision of the magistrates who had bound him over and ordered him to pay 4/- costs on a charge of unlawfully resorting to a common gaming-house, contrary to the Unlawful Games Act, 1541. Mr. H. J. Brown (for Mr. Roden) said that appellant had been engaged to do work at the Crown Inn, Manor-place, Bognor Regis. While he was there the landlord invited him into the house for some refreshments. He had been there for no more than two minutes when the police arrived. He was taken with others on d lorry to the police-station. Mr. Geoffrey Lawrence, for the respondent, said that at the police court the solicitor for the prosecution quoted the head-note from the ca’Se decided in 1897, and the magistrates probably considered that it bound them. Lord Hewart, the Lord Chief Justice: That might explain what was done, but does not excuse it. Mr. Justice Goddard said that all the facts must have been known to the police before the charge was heard. They should never have brought it. Lord Hewart, giving judgment, said the matter which came before them in that case was outrageous that it was difficult to refer to it with the patience and restraint which was suitable in a court of law. The summons was persisted in, despite the fact that the police had ample time in which to inquire into Mr. Roden’s case. “A LITTLE LEARNING—” The solicitor for the prosecution read the head-note of a case decided in 1897 and told the magistrates that they were entitled to convict Mr. Roden and bind him over, notwithstanding the fact that he had established an innocent purpose, which was the only purpose for which he was on the premises. Thereupon the Magistrates convicted. “Really,” Lord Hewart continued, “if ever there was a case in which it is clear that a little learning is a dangerous thing, it is the present one. If anybody had taken the trouble to look beyond the head-note of that case he woufld have seen the ludicrous nature of the task which the magistrates were being invited to parry out. It is inconceivable how the Justices, although satisfied that Mr. Roden was not on the premists for any unlawful game, could have convicted him and bound him over not to do again what he had never done —and which they found he was not doing. They were, in fact, convicting a man whom they had found was innocent, it is strange that it should be possible in the year 1936, that such a shocking position could arise. It is perfectly obvious that Mr. Roden’s innocence had been established to the satisfaction of the court, and it was an outrage to convict and bind him over in these circumstances.” Mr. Justice Goddard agreed with Lord Hewart that the proceeding was both an outrage and shocking, and added that the matter appeared to be one in which further and searching inquiries were necessary.