Talk:Binding over

No definition!

As of July 5 08, the article describes when "binding over" might be applied, but never defines what it is! Can someone fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.176.31.200 (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"Measures"

"A magistrate has power to take measures to prevent a likely breach of the peace..."

Just what are these measures? The law is not always understandable to those unschooled in its jargon, but this legal article is particularly egregious in this regard. David Spector (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hong Kong?

Since Hong Kong was returned to China, is any legal practice used by British law still used in Hong Kong? I'd be very much surprised if it were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.105.146 (talk) 08:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, under Hong Kong's Basic Law and the "one country, two systems" principle established under the Sino-British Joint Declaration, China has guaranteed Hong Kong a period of 50 years of no change from the point of China's resumption of Hong Kong's sovereignty on 1 July 1997, during which the Special Administration Region's legal system will be preserved. Hong Kong courts always refer to British case law. --Stoatmonster (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion: Clean-up

Hello,

I feel this article needs a good clean-up, so I have replaced a verification template with a multiple-issue template. A clean-up will require significant work so before attempting the task I would like a discussion to try to obtain consensus on several points.

Focus

1. The article began by mentioning the law in England and Wales, and then mentions other jurisdictions that use common law. Should this article just consider a bind-over in England or Wales, or attempt to include this wider scope?

1. A confusion exists in the article about what courts use the bind-over procedure. The article places emphasis on its use in a Magistrates Court, however, sometimes it is used by Judges sitting in the Crown Court. The law differs between the two courts. Should this article focus on just magistrates court, Crown Court, or both of them?

Factual Issues I feel that the article includes an unacceptable number of factual errors, and I have marked the most notable of these in the article. Some relevant information is included in the article Justices of the Peace Act 1361

1. 'binding over, a binding over order, and binding over for sentence are exercises of certain powers by magistrates'

As previously mentioned, this is potentially misleading as Judges and Crown Courts use bind-overs.

1. "Magistrates can bind over a person to be of good behaviour or to keep the peace"

Since 2013, procedures are tighter about defining what the person should not do.

1. "This may happen where the case involves violence or the threat of it"

A bind-over does not require an element of violence.

1. "A magistrate has legal power to make orders to prevent a likely breach of the peace"

Bind-over orders are unlikely to just read to prevent a likely breach of the peace.

1. "pain of six months’ imprisonment on refusal"

The maximum is 6 months, or until the person agrees to be bound over.

1. "‘binding over to keep the peace’"

I am unsure of the origins of this terminology, especially as bind-overs are used for an array of different purposes.

1. "A refusal to accept the terms of the binding over order may be treated as a contempt of court."

This is part of the confusion about the differing procedures between Magistrates court and Crown Court. A refusal to be bound over in Magistrates court is dealt with in the Magistrates Court Act, but in the Crown Court it is a Contempt of Court.

I welcome any comments or discussion of these matters. WPCW (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)