Venue in Larceny: Central Criminal Court.

225

see 33-4 V. 52 (s. 27 partly rpd. S. L. R. 1883); 36-7 V. 60, and 88, 28; 44-5 V. 69 (ss. 40, 41, and sched. rpd. S. L. R. 1894), and 58-9 V. 33: Ex parte Bouvier, 42 L. J. Q. B. 17; 12 Cox C. C. 303, 1872; Weil, 9 Q. B. D. 701, 1882; Re Castioni, 1891, 1 Q. B. 149; 60 L. J. M. C. 22; Re Bellencontre, 1891, 2 Q. B. 122; 60 L. J. M. C. 83; Re Meunier; Re Arton, 1896, 1 Q. B. 108, 509; 18 Cox C. C. 277; 65 L. J. M. C. 23, 50; Re Galwey, 1896, 1 Q. B. 230; 65 L. J. M. C. 38; Spilsbury, 19 Cox C. C. 160, 1898, 303 (v. R., 1898: Judicial Committee); Ex parte Siletti, 20 Cox C. C. 353, 1902; Ex parte Percival, 23 T. L. R. 238, 1907; Ex parte Moser, 25 Cox C. C. 69, 1915.

In a case of this class, Loreburn C. is reported to have said, 'every question affecting public liberty should, if possible, be heard in public, with the safeguard of publicity' (ex parte Lapierre: the Times, Aug. 7, 1906; Law Journal, Aug. 11, 1906). A judge should not grant a habeas corpus while extradition proceedings are sub judice in another court: U. S. A. v. Gaynor, 1905, A. C. 128.

Larceny in one part of the United Kingdom-proceeds in another] The primary meaning of the United Kingdom' is Great Britain and Ireland but the phrase does not include the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.' Stroud's Jud. Dict., where see the cases cited; but contrast 41-2 V. 73, 7.

By 6-7 G. 5, 50, 39 (2): 'Every person who steals or otherwise feloniously takes any property in any one part of the United Kingdom may be dealt with, indicted, tried, and punished in any other part of the United Kingdom where he has the property in his possession, in the same manner as if he had actually stolen or taken it in that part; (3) Every person who receives in any one part of the United Kingdom any property stolen or otherwise feloniously taken in any other part of the United Kingdom, may be dealt with, indicted, and punished for such offence in that part of the United Kingdom where he so receives the property, in the same manner as if it had been originally stolen or taken in that part.'

5. The Central Criminal Court] By 4-5 W. 4, 36, 2, the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court extends over all offences committed within the city of London and county of Middlesex, and those parts of the counties of Essex, Kent, and Surrey, within the parishes of Barking, East Ham, West Ham, Little Ilford, Low Layton, Walthamstow, Wanstead St. Mary, Woodford, and Chingford, in Essex; Charlton, Lee, Lewisham, Greenwich, Woolwich, Eltham, Plumstead, St. Nicholas Deptford, that part of St. Paul Deptford which is within the county of Kent, the liberty of Kidbrook and the hamlet of Mottingham, in Kent; and the borough of Southwark, the parishes of Battersea, Bermondsey, Camberwell, Christchurch, Clapham, Lambeth, St. Mary Newington, Rotherhithe, Streatham, Barnes, Putney, that part of St. Paul Deptford which is within the county of Surrey, Tooting, Graveney, Wandsworth, Merton, Mortlake, Kew, Richmond, Wimbledon, the Clink liberty, and the district of Lambeth palace, in Surrey.

By s. 3, the district situated within the limits of the jurisdiction herein before established shall be deemed . one county for all purposes of venue, local description, trial, judgment, and execution not herein specially provided for; and in all indictments and ments... the venue laid in the margin shall be Criminal Court, to wit,'' and all offences and material facts (which

presentCentral

would otherwise be laid or averred in the geographical county) are to be laid and averred, &c. within the jurisdiction of the said court; see also 9-10 V. c. 24, 3 (rpd.). By 51-2 V. 41 (Local Government A. 1888), 89 (1), 4-5 W. 36 is to be construed as if the county of London were throughout mentioned therein as well as the county of Middlesex.

Home counties] Under 39-40 V. 57 (and so under the other Assizes Acts, above), the jurisdiction of the court may be extended to any neighbouring county or part of a county,' i.e. neighbouring to the Central Criminal Court district,' with such modifications and exceptions (if any) as to her Majesty may seem fit.' Neighbouring here has been interpreted as the home counties' (Encycl. Laws of Eng.: C. C. C.), but, it seems, that this is a merely popular phrase with varying meanings or applications. Since 1876 cases from Berks, Herts and Sussex have, in fact, been tried at the Central Criminal Court: but from Berks not since 1877, and Surrey since 1898, and the use of the A. has now wholly been abandoned. For an instance of an Order in Council conferring jurisdiction on that court in these counties and 'such parts of the counties of Essex, Kent and Surrey as are not included in the Central Criminal Court District,' see London Gazette, Oct. 27, 1876 (vol. 2, pt. 2), p. 5664. Thus Berks, which does not touch Middlesex, has been considered as neighbouring to the C. C. C. district,' while Bucks, which does, never has (cf. Millar, 1837); neither were on the 'Home' Circuit which in 1845 included Herts, Essex, Sussex, Kent and Surrey (Report of Circuit Regulation Commission, p. 126).

Where an indictment for misdemeanour was preferred at the Central Criminal Court, and the marginal venue was 'Central Criminal Court, to wit, and in the body the facts were stated to have taken place at the parish of St. Mary, Lambeth, Surrey, within the jurisdiction of the said court,' and the indictment was removed by certiorari, it was held that the trial must be at the assizes for Surrey. Connop, 4 A. & E. 942, 1836. See also, for the venue of this court, Gregory, 7 Q. B. 274; 1 Cox C. C. 198; 14 L. J. M. C. 82, 1845.

An indictment for misdemeanour at the Central Criminal Court had in the margin the words, Central Criminal Court,' and stated that M.A., 'late of the parish of St. Stephen, Coleman-street, in the city of London, and within the jurisdiction of the said Court,' at the parish aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction,' &c., did-alleging the offence without further statement of venue. It was removed by certiorari into the Q. B. and tried in London, and there was a conviction. On motion in arrest of judgment, semble, that the venue assigned to the material fact appeared sufficiently to be in the city of London; and it was held, assuming this to be otherwise, that the defect was only want of a proper or perfect venue, and was cured by (rpd.) 7 G. 4, 64, 20, for the indictment showed jurisdiction in the court at nisi prius to try in London. This Court has jurisdiction over any indictment removed into it, let the venue be where it will.' Albert, 5 Q. B. 37, 1843. Where not one of the fivet counties in which the jurisdiction of the C. O. C. existed was mentioned in the indictment, and the material facts were laid only as having taken place within the jurisdiction of the said court,' and the defendant, having removed it by certiorari, was tried at nisi prius in Middlesex and found guilty; the Q. B. arrested judgment, the description of place not being made

* Information kindly supplied by the officials of that court.

Sic, per L. Denman C.J.; including the county of the City of London.

Certiorari.

227

sufficient by s. 3, above, in cases not tried at the C. C. C., and the defect not being cured by (rpd.) s. 20 above, the nisi prius Court not appearing by the indictment, to have had jurisdiction over the offence. The court refused, after verdict, to enter a suggestion [allegation] of a trial in Middlesex, nunc pro tunc. And, semble, such an application would not be granted at any period. An indictment preferred in the C. C. C. shouid, with a view to the possibility of its removal, contain, besides the statutory venue, a venue of the county where the offence really took place. And if that has not been done, it should be made a condition of the removal by certiorari that the defendant consent to the insertion.' Stowell, 5 Q. B. 44, 1843; and see also Gregory, above; Hunt, 10 Q. B. 925; 17 L. J. M. C. 14; 2 Cox C. C. 264, 1847; and Smythies, 1 Den. C. C. R. 498; 19 L. J. M. C. 31, 1849. On an indictment found at the C. C. C. for perjury committed in London, within its jurisdiction, afterwards removed by certiorari into the Q. B., Middlesex was specified in the certiorari as the county of trial, and the jury were taken from that county; it was held that the Q. B. had a discretion to name in the certiorari the county or jurisdiction-provided it be within the jurisdiction of the C. C. C.-in which the trial was to take place, and that by the jurors summoned thence the same issues-here one count was for perjury in Middlesex, and one for it in London-could be tried as would have been in the C. C. C. Castro, L. R. 9 Q. B. 350; 30 L. T. 320, 1874; 28 L. T. 342, 1873; 43 L. J. Q. B. 105; 12 Cox C. C. 454: under 9-10 V. 24, 3.

'Palmer's' A.] By Palmer's Act,' 19-20 V. 16, 1, 3, the K. B. has power to order cases where it is expedient to the ends of justice' indictments found or to be preferred for felonies or misdemeanours committed out of the jurisdiction of the C. C. C., to be tried at that Court. In Moross, committed for trial (for rape, &c.) on the ground of enormous excitement in the city and county,' the Q. B. D. thought it better that the trial should be at the C. C. C. rather than at Newcastle or even in either of the adjoining counties, Northumberland and Durham, though this delayed the trial for six weeks-on condition that defendant paid all the extra costs and gave 1007. as security for them: 7 T. L. R. 50, 1891. By 46-7 V. 51, 50, indictments under it or the Corrupt Practices Prevention Acts (enumerated in Index) may, if they are in or removed into the High Court at the instance of the Attorney-General, be tried there, or, if with a special jury, at the Royal Courts of Justice. Offences under the Official Secrets A. 1911, 1-2 G. 5, 28 (and the Census Acts, 63-4 V. 4 & 6), if alleged to have been committed out of the United Kingdom, may by s. 10 (2) also be tried there. For other cases, see Index, Venue.

Procedure] is by motion to the K. B. D.. for an order nisi during the sittings: in vacation (when there is no Div. Ct. sitting) to a judge at chambers for a summons: Short, Cr. Off. Pr. R. 19.

6. Indictments A. 1915] R. 2 is: The commencement of the indictment shall be in the following form:

THE KING v. A. B.

Court OF TRIAL [e.g. Central Criminal Court [or] In the High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division, [or] Durham County Assizes held at Durham, [or] Hants Quarter Sessions held at Winchester].'

Apart from statute, the Q. B. D. has inherent power to change the place of trial (though, perhaps, not technically the venue: Chitty, 1 Cr. L. 201). At any rate, removal into the High Court does not ipso facto change the venue.

7. Change of venue-not merely for convenience] Only when it is alleged that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the county where the venue is laid, will the K. B. D., on an affidavit stating that fact, generally consider whether the trial may be had in an adjacent county usually on the same circuit': Short, p. 100. Good ground must be stated in the affidavit for the belief that a fair trial cannot be had. Harris, 3 Burr. 1330; 1 W. Bl. 378, 1762. In Clerk v. R., 9 H. L. Cas. 184, 1861, the H. L.-after the trial-assumed that a suggestion that a trial (quo warranto) may be more conveniently had in Middlesex than in the county of Lancaster meant more fairly. In Casey, 13 Cox C. C. 614, 1877: libel, the Irish Q. B. refused to entertain a suggestion that a fair trial could not be had in Dublin because defendant could not afford to pay the fares of his witnesses (from Cork) and appear to have thought that the venue in a criminal case cannot be changed, and that the place of trial ought not to be changed merely on the ground of convenience' so Dunn, 11 Jur. 287, 1847; but in two subsequent murders that court changed the venue on the ground that an impartial trial could not be had. McEneany, 14 ib. 87, 1878; Walter, ib. 579, 1881-in both cases, not without dissent; in the former defendant's solicitor swore that there was strong prejudice against him in the venue county, and that many persons qualified as jurors there had expressed their belief in his guilt: in the latter, a Land League case, the Crown urged successfully in two counties that an impartial trial could not be had, but only obtained a change to a third on terms, one of which was to pay the accused's costs incurred by the change.

It seems that the court is slow in any case to grant a change, and Short, Cr. O. Pr. p. 106, note, says that it will require stronger grounds to be shown in felony,' but in Holden, 5 B. & Ad. 347; 2 Nev. & M. 167, 1833, Denman Č.J. said that even in the case of misdemeanour, 'the circumstances have almost amounted to a necessity.' There-a capital felony-one reason for refusing was that Suffolk was a great county, and that the alleged prejudice would have time-nearly a year between trial and committal to die down; the defendants were in fact acquitted in Suffolk. In Sheldon, 32 L. T. N. S. 27, 1875, it appeared to be necessary in a trial for perjury that there should bo a view of premises in question, which, however, were in Warwickshire and not in Worcestershire, in which the bill was found; it had been removed into the Q. B. and was to be tried on the civil side at the assizes. Cockburn C.J., Blackburn and Mellor JJ.-apparently on the authority of Clerk v. R. above-ordered the trial to take place at Warwick Assizes: acquittal.

The application must be made before the trial; after verdict the C. C. A. will not, as a rule, hear it: E. Wilson, &c., 1911.

Private Persons.

229

See Suspects.

C. APPREHENSION.

For Violence and Breaking in in arrest, see under Murder and Riots.

Authority] The constable hath as good authority in his place as the Chief Justice of England in his': per Coke C.J., 1616: 1 Rolle's Rep. 238. That authority is discussed under Tooley, 1709. It extends to calling on any private person to assist him in arresting (and, perhaps, generally in the execution of his duty) when there is a reasonable necessity: Sherlock, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 20; 35 L. J. M. C. 92; 10 Cox C. C. 170, 1866.

1. Arrest defined] See Fresh pursuit under Murder.

By private persons-common law] At common law all private persons are justified, without a warrant, in apprehending and detaining until they can be carried before a magistrate all persons found committing or attempting to commit a felony or to escape after the attempt: per the judges. Hunt; Howarth, Moo. C. C. 93, 207, 1825, 1828; or under a statute. In both these cases the crime took place in the night; but in neither was that fact the ground of the decision, though in the former it is alluded to apparently with the view of emphasising the duty of a private person who, in the daytime, would share it with many others. The authorities in 1 Russ. Cri 727, do not mention the night. See 1 Hale, 439.

But on mere suspicion of felony, or of lesser offences, a private person has at common law no right to apprehend. Fost. 318. Whether or not a private person may arrest one indicted for felony does not appear to be well settled. 2 Hale, P. C. 84; Dalton, c. 170, s. 5; 1 East, P. C. 300; 1 Russ. Cri. 729.

The view that at common law every private person may arrest any suspicious night walker, and detain him till he give a good account of himself, e.g. Hawk. P. C. 2, 12, 20; 13, 6, would be an authority even more general than that of a peace officer, and it is not law. Russ. Cri. 6th ed. 75-6.

Where a breach of the peace is actually committing, any private person, after proper warning, and calling on the parties to desist, may interfere to prevent it, even though no felony be committed or attempted. Fost. 272, 311; 1 Russ. Cri. 727.

Statutes] By 4-5 G. 5, 58, 27: 'Where at common law or under' any A. there is power to arrest a person without a warrant, a warrant for his arrest may be issued.'

By 14-15 V. 19, 11: 'It shall be lawful for any person whatsoever to apprehend any person who shall be found committing any indictable offence in the night, and to convey him or deliver him to some constable or other peace officer, in order to his being conveyed, as as conveniently may be, before a justice of the peace, to be dealt with according to law."

soon