- Email: [email protected]
CALL FOR AN END TO THE NUCLEAR ARMS RACE
1509 themselves to warrant the setting aside of the fine which had been imposed. There had been a breach of the rules of natural justice. Further, having regard to the Court of Appeal decision in Weston v Courts Administrator of the Central Criminal Court (1976) (2 All ER 875), the late attendance of a person at court (in particular when there was some
excuse
and when there was no intention to hinder
or
delay proceedings) was not capable of constituting a contempt of court (Per Lord Denning MR at p 881). This was the second reason why the order could not stand. Thirdly, there was an important point concerning the powers and jurisdiction of coroners generally in this context. The question with concerned was whether any contempt any jurisdiction to impose a fine for nonattendance or late attendance at an inquest, lies where the only indication to the witness has been an informal one and no written summons has been issued or served upon him. The Coroners Act 1887 (s 21) deals with the power to summon medical witnesses: it empowers a coroner to summon medical witnesses in certain circumstances. Section 23 is headed "penalty on medical practitioners for neglecting to attend" and provides: "Where a medical practitioner fails to obey a summons of a coroner issued in pursuance of this Act, he shall, unless he shows a good and sufficient cause for not having obeyed the same, be liable on summary conviction on the prosecution of the coroner or of any two of the jury to a fine not exceeding £ 5" (now increased to £ 200). Section 19 deals with the attendance of witnesses generally and of jurors and section 19 (2) states, "Where a person duly summoned to give evidence at an inquest does not, after being openly called three times, appear for such summons, or appearing refuses without lawful excuse to answer a question put to him, the coroner may impose on such a person a fine not exceeding 40 shillings" (now 200). Section 19 (3) provided that any power given by the 1887 Act which allowed a coroner to impose a fine on a juror or witness was additional to and not in derogation of any other power the coroner may possess to compel a person to appear before him or to punish him for contempt for not so appearing and giving evidence so long as the person should not be fined both under the Act and otherwise. Lord Justice Kerr said that the doctor was clearly a medical witness but that he had been so informally invited to the inquest that it was not possible to say under which section he had been called. However, it did not matter under which section he was asked to give evidence because the coroner had no jurisdiction to fine him under either section, let alone to deal with him for contempt of court, since no written summons had been issued or served on him. It was which the
court
jurisdiction
or,
was
indeed,
knowledge that witnesses, particularly medical witnesses, constantly being asked or required to attend inquests, simply by being notified of the place, date, and time of the inquest and of the fact they should attend. Generally this caused no difficulty and was common are
convenient. It was clear, however, when considering the wording of sections 23 and 19 (2) that in order to found the jurisdiction to impose a fine as referred to in those provisions, a written summons was a necessary prerequisite. Therefore the coroner, not having issued a written summoris, had no jurisdiction to deal with the doctor by a fine under either section 19 (2) or 23 and a fortiori to exercise any powers of contempt that may be vested in him. Further, Lord Justice Kerr said that even if a written summons had been issued in this case, and apart from what was said in Weston, he was not satisfied that non-attendance at the proper time would constitute contempt in the face of the court so as to fall within the residual powers referred in section 19 (3). The power to deal with somebody who fails to appear even when a summons has been issued is the power to fine in sections 19 (2) or 23. Coroners had no jurisdiction to go further in such cases by invoking the law of contempt. The order made by the coroner was wholly wrong and was set aside. Mr Justice Webster agreed. Costs were awarded against the coroner with the expectation that he would be indemnified by the City of London. In the matter of Dr A. S. Rayan and in the matter of the Coroners Act 1887 and the Administration of Justice Act 1960. Divisional Court, Oct 12, 1983. Kerr LJ and Webster J.
DIANA
BRAHAMS,
Barrister-at-Law
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War The following appeal was prepared by the third congress of IPPNW in Amsterdam in June (see Lancet, July 2, p 57). It is being circulated for signature by doctors in all countries where physicians are active against the nuclear arms race. After IPPNW’s fourth congress in Helsinki next year the signed appeal will be presented by an international delegation of physicians to the leaders of the five nations known to possess nuclear weapons. Readers in the United Kingdom prepared to sign this statement should communicate with Medical Campaign against Nuclear Weapons, 7 Tenison Road, Cambridge CB1 2DG. Those in other countries should write to IPPNW, 225 LongwoodAvenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
CALL FOR AN END TO THE NUCLEAR ARMS RACE
As
physicians,
we
wish
to
express
our
professional
the unprecedented threat to life and health posed by nuclear weapons, a threat that hangs over hundreds of millions of people. The increasing accumulation of destructive power and the development of ever more sophisticated weapons greatly increase the risk of nuclear war. If even a single nuclear weapon is exploded over one of our major cities, hundreds of thousands will be killed. If many nuclear weapons are exploded, radioactive fallout and disturbance of the biosphere will cause suffering and death-particularly from starvation, radiation illness, infectious disease, and cancer-without regard to national boundaries. The remaining medical facilities and personnel will be inadequate to help the wounded. An all-out nuclear war would end our present civilisation. The cost of the arms race is not only the vast sums being diverted to armaments in a world where tens of thousands of human beings die each day of treatable diseases. The cost -is also in the great psychological damage that is being done, particularly to young people and children who fear they will have no futures. We recognise that to reach agreements to end the nuclear arms race and avert the introduction of nuclear weapons into any conflict represents a major political task. We regard such agreements as crucial and urgent since the threat of nuclear war is the greatest challenge to health and survival that humanity has ever faced. As physicians, we believe a nuclear war would be the final concern
over
epidemic.
excuse
and when there was no intention to hinder
or
delay proceedings) was not capable of constituting a contempt of court (Per Lord Denning MR at p 881). This was the second reason why the order could not stand. Thirdly, there was an important point concerning the powers and jurisdiction of coroners generally in this context. The question with concerned was whether any contempt any jurisdiction to impose a fine for nonattendance or late attendance at an inquest, lies where the only indication to the witness has been an informal one and no written summons has been issued or served upon him. The Coroners Act 1887 (s 21) deals with the power to summon medical witnesses: it empowers a coroner to summon medical witnesses in certain circumstances. Section 23 is headed "penalty on medical practitioners for neglecting to attend" and provides: "Where a medical practitioner fails to obey a summons of a coroner issued in pursuance of this Act, he shall, unless he shows a good and sufficient cause for not having obeyed the same, be liable on summary conviction on the prosecution of the coroner or of any two of the jury to a fine not exceeding £ 5" (now increased to £ 200). Section 19 deals with the attendance of witnesses generally and of jurors and section 19 (2) states, "Where a person duly summoned to give evidence at an inquest does not, after being openly called three times, appear for such summons, or appearing refuses without lawful excuse to answer a question put to him, the coroner may impose on such a person a fine not exceeding 40 shillings" (now 200). Section 19 (3) provided that any power given by the 1887 Act which allowed a coroner to impose a fine on a juror or witness was additional to and not in derogation of any other power the coroner may possess to compel a person to appear before him or to punish him for contempt for not so appearing and giving evidence so long as the person should not be fined both under the Act and otherwise. Lord Justice Kerr said that the doctor was clearly a medical witness but that he had been so informally invited to the inquest that it was not possible to say under which section he had been called. However, it did not matter under which section he was asked to give evidence because the coroner had no jurisdiction to fine him under either section, let alone to deal with him for contempt of court, since no written summons had been issued or served on him. It was which the
court
jurisdiction
or,
was
indeed,
knowledge that witnesses, particularly medical witnesses, constantly being asked or required to attend inquests, simply by being notified of the place, date, and time of the inquest and of the fact they should attend. Generally this caused no difficulty and was common are
convenient. It was clear, however, when considering the wording of sections 23 and 19 (2) that in order to found the jurisdiction to impose a fine as referred to in those provisions, a written summons was a necessary prerequisite. Therefore the coroner, not having issued a written summoris, had no jurisdiction to deal with the doctor by a fine under either section 19 (2) or 23 and a fortiori to exercise any powers of contempt that may be vested in him. Further, Lord Justice Kerr said that even if a written summons had been issued in this case, and apart from what was said in Weston, he was not satisfied that non-attendance at the proper time would constitute contempt in the face of the court so as to fall within the residual powers referred in section 19 (3). The power to deal with somebody who fails to appear even when a summons has been issued is the power to fine in sections 19 (2) or 23. Coroners had no jurisdiction to go further in such cases by invoking the law of contempt. The order made by the coroner was wholly wrong and was set aside. Mr Justice Webster agreed. Costs were awarded against the coroner with the expectation that he would be indemnified by the City of London. In the matter of Dr A. S. Rayan and in the matter of the Coroners Act 1887 and the Administration of Justice Act 1960. Divisional Court, Oct 12, 1983. Kerr LJ and Webster J.
DIANA
BRAHAMS,
Barrister-at-Law
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War The following appeal was prepared by the third congress of IPPNW in Amsterdam in June (see Lancet, July 2, p 57). It is being circulated for signature by doctors in all countries where physicians are active against the nuclear arms race. After IPPNW’s fourth congress in Helsinki next year the signed appeal will be presented by an international delegation of physicians to the leaders of the five nations known to possess nuclear weapons. Readers in the United Kingdom prepared to sign this statement should communicate with Medical Campaign against Nuclear Weapons, 7 Tenison Road, Cambridge CB1 2DG. Those in other countries should write to IPPNW, 225 LongwoodAvenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
CALL FOR AN END TO THE NUCLEAR ARMS RACE
As
physicians,
we
wish
to
express
our
professional
the unprecedented threat to life and health posed by nuclear weapons, a threat that hangs over hundreds of millions of people. The increasing accumulation of destructive power and the development of ever more sophisticated weapons greatly increase the risk of nuclear war. If even a single nuclear weapon is exploded over one of our major cities, hundreds of thousands will be killed. If many nuclear weapons are exploded, radioactive fallout and disturbance of the biosphere will cause suffering and death-particularly from starvation, radiation illness, infectious disease, and cancer-without regard to national boundaries. The remaining medical facilities and personnel will be inadequate to help the wounded. An all-out nuclear war would end our present civilisation. The cost of the arms race is not only the vast sums being diverted to armaments in a world where tens of thousands of human beings die each day of treatable diseases. The cost -is also in the great psychological damage that is being done, particularly to young people and children who fear they will have no futures. We recognise that to reach agreements to end the nuclear arms race and avert the introduction of nuclear weapons into any conflict represents a major political task. We regard such agreements as crucial and urgent since the threat of nuclear war is the greatest challenge to health and survival that humanity has ever faced. As physicians, we believe a nuclear war would be the final concern
over
epidemic.