Cases in Caselist Flashcards
Who was the judge in Abdul Hamid bin Jamal v Public Prosecutor [1934] MLJ 46?
Mudie J
What was the facts in Attorney-General v Wilts United Dairies [1922] KB 847?
The Food Controller had been given power under the Defence of the Realm Acts to regulate milk sales. In granting the dairy a licence to buy milk in Cornwall, Devon, Dorset and Somerset, the Food Controller required the Dairy to pay 2d. per imperial gallon of milk purchased from those counties. The Attorney-General sued for the recovery of the monies which were not paid. The Dairy’s objection was that the method adopted by the Food Controller was in its nature a tax which could only be levied or imposed by Parliament.
What did Scrotton LJ said in Attorney-General v Wilts United Dairies [1922] KB 847?
Scrutton LJ said: ‘It is conceivable that Parliament, which may pass legislation requiring the subject to pay money to the Crown, may also delegate its powers of imposing such payments to the Executive. But in my view the clearest words should be required before the courts hold such an unusual delegation has taken place.’ After citing Gosling v Veley: ‘A great deal of time was occupied in arguing whether the requirement of this payment was a ‘tax’. I prefer to use the words of the Bill of Rights which forbids ‘levying money for the use of the Crown without grant of Parliament,’ and the requirement of this 2d. appears to me clearly to come within these words. It is true that the fear in 1689 was that the King by his prerogative would claim money; but excessive claims by the Executive Government without grant of Parliament are, at the present time, quite as dangerous, and require as careful considerations and restriction from the Court of Justice.’
What did Atkin LJ say in Attorney-General v Wilts United Dairies [1922] KB 847?
Atkin LJ: ‘Though the attention of our ancestors was directed especially to abuses of the prerogative, there can be no doubt that this statute declares the law that no money shall be levied for or to the use of the Crown except by grant of Parliament. We know how strictly Parliament has maintained this right – and, in particular, how jealously the House of Commons has asserted its predominance in the power of raising money.
In these circumstances, if an officer of the executive seeks to justify a charge upon the subject made for the use of the Crown (which includes all the purposes of the public revenue), he must show, in clear terms, that Parliament has authorized the particular charge.’ and ‘It makes no difference that the obligation to pay the money is expressed in the form of an agreement. It was illegal for the Food Controller to require such an agreement as a condition of any licence. It was illegal for him to enter into such an agreement. The agreement itself is not enforceable against the other contracting party; and if he had paid under it he could, having paid under protest, recover back the sums paid, as money had and received to his use.’
Which court heard Abdul Hamid bin Jamal v Public Prosecutor [1934] MLJ 46?
The High Court
What did the High Court rule in Abdul Hamid bin Jamal v Public Prosecutor [1934] MLJ 46?
- When a matter was already decided by a competent court, it cannot be reopened and tried again on fresh evidence.
- The magistrate erred in matter against Abdul Hamid bin Jamal was already res judicata.
- The High Court ordered habeas corpus for Abdul Hamid bin Jamal’s release.
What were the facts in Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40?
- The law allowed the Committee to “dismiss, any constable whom they think negligent in the discharge of his duty…”
- Ridge, a Chief Constable of Brighton, had been charged with conspiracy to obstruct the course of justice but he was acquitted by the court.
- In respect of corruption charges, evidence was not adduced.
- The committee dismissed him after 33 years without him being afforded a hearing before the committee.
- He challenged the order of dismissal on the ground that the committee failed to observe natural justice where he was not allowed to know the full case against him.
What was held in Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40?
(House of Lords) The termination was ultra vires on the ground that the applicant’s right to be heard had not been honoured. His dismissal was declared to be null and void. The courts can imply natural justice even if natural justice is not expressly stated in the statute. An officer cannot be lawfully dismissed without first telling him what is alleged against him and hearing his defense.
