HC Deb 19 May 1892 vol 4 c1304

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that, at the Rye Petty Sessions, held on the 30th December, 1891, Frederick Humphreys was fined 10s. and costs for not having had his child vaccinated, which fine and costs he paid under protest, as he had not been served with a notice since a previous conviction for the same offence; and, as the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court has decided that a second conviction without a second notice is illegal, will he order the convicting justices to return to Frederick Humphreys the fine and costs imposed?


Yes, Sir, I am aware of the circumstances of the case to which the hon. Member refers. I presume that the hon. Member, when he speaks of a notice, means the fresh order which the Queen's Bench Division has decided must be made each time before proceedings are taken. This decision of the High Court was not given until February last; and previous decisions of the High Court supported the view which was generally taken by magistrates, and was followed in Humphreys' case. I do not see any way to re-opening cases decided before the decision in "Reg. v. Pink."