View report page

37
ENTRY.
A very important decision was given in the Queen's Bench Divisional Court,
on January 18th, 1899, before Lord Justices Lawrance and Channell, in the
case of Mabel Mary Vines (St. Pancras Yestry) v. the North London Collegiate
and Camden School for Girls, which makes clear what before was very obscure,
namely, the power of entry of a sanitary officer under the Public Health
(London) Act, 1891.
On the 17th February, 1897, the Vestry of St. Pancras approved of the
desirability of the Woman Sanitary Inspector inspecting Infants' and Girls'
Schools (especially those conducted privately) from time to time. The View
Sub-Committee of the Health Committee had found sanitary defects in the
large majority of the public elementary schools visited by them, and in
January there was a considerable amount of infectious disease about, and Miss
Yines, the Woman Sanitary Inspector, in accordance with the Vestry's approval
and the duty of the Authority under Section 1 of the Public Health
(London) Act, 1891, applied for admission into the North London School, for
the purpose of ascertaining whether any nuisance existed, or whether there was
any infraction of the bye-laws. This admission was refused. An application
was made under the Act (Sec. 115, Sub-s. 3) to a Stipendiary Magistrate (Mr.
Plowden), to issue a warrant for entry, the Act stating that "if a Justice is
satisfied, by information on oath, that there is reasonable ground for such
entry, and that there has been a failure or refusal to admit to such premises,
and that reasonable notice of the intention to apply to a Justice for a warrant
has been given, the Justice may, by warrant under his hand, authorise the
Sanitary Authority, or their Officers, or other person, as the case may require,
to enter the premises." The Inspector, before the Magistrate, did not state
that a nuisance was suspected, but demanded the warrant as a right, replying:—on
the wording of Section 1, which provides that it shall be the duty
of every Sanitary Authority to cause to be made from time to time inspection
of their district, with a view to ascertain what nuisances exist calling for
abatement: on Section 2 the " nuisance clause " ; on Section 40 giving power
to Sanitary Authorities to enter and examine drains and sanitary fittings; and
on Section 10 stating the right of the Sanitary Authority to enter premises
to examine nuisances.
The Magistrate refused the application on the ground that in point of law
there was no evidence before him of reasonable ground for such entry within
the meaning of Section 115, Sub-section 3 ; he, however, stated a case, the
result of which is that the magisterial decision has been upheld and the
appeal dismissed with costs. The following are the material portions of the
Judgment:—
Mr. Justice Lawrance: "I think the Magistrate arrived at a perfectly
proper conclusion in this case. The application was made under Sections 10
and 40—either one or the other of them, or both—to enter into this particular
house; under one' section for the purpose of examining as to the existence of
a nuisance requiring to be dealt with summarily, and under Section 40, which
says that 'the Sanitary Authority may examine any of the following works,
that is to say, any water-closet, earth-closet, privy, ashpit, cesspool,' and so
forth. Now, the application was made by the Appellant in this case, who