THE information ex officio is a formal written suggestion of Ex officio. an offence committed, filed by the Queen's attorney-general, or, in the vacancy of that office, by the solicitor-general, (R. v. Wilkes, 4 Burr. 2527) in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, without the intervention of a grand jury.

It lies for a misdemeanor only. (Com. Dig. Information (A. 1); 2 Hawk. c. 26, s. 3.) The usual objects of an information ex officio are such misdemeanors as peculiarly tend to disturb or endanger the Queen's government, or to molest or affront her in the regular discharge of her royal functions (4 Bla. Com. 308): such for instance, as seditious or blasphemous libels; seditious riots not amounting to high treason; libels upon the Queen's ministers, the judges, or other high officers, reflecting upon their conduct in the execution of their official duties; obstructing such officers in the execution of their duties; obstructing the Queen's officers in the collection, &c., of the revenue against magistrates and officers themselves for bribery, or for other corrupt or oppressive conduct; and the like.

The following is the form of an information ex officio :

,

Trinity Sittings, 25 Vict. Middlesex.-Be it remembered, that Sir, knight, attorney-general of our sovereign lady the Queen, who for our said lady the Queen prosecutes in this behalf, in his proper person comes into the Court of our said lady the Queen before the Queen herself at Westminster, in the county of Middlesex, on and for our said lady the Queen gives the Court here to understand and be informed that," &c., so proceeding to state the facts constituting the offence, as in an indictment, excepting that, in introducing averments, instead of the words, "And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present," are used the words, "And the said attorney-general of our said lady the Queen, for our said lady the Queen, further gives the Court here to understand and be informed that," &c. (conclude as in an indictment.)

The second and subsequent counts commence thus: "And the said attorney-general of our said lady the Queen, for our said lady the Queen,

PART IV. further gives the Court here to understand and be informed that," so proceeding to state the offence, and concluding as in an indictment. And to the conclusion of the last count are added these words: "And therefore the said attorney-general of our said lady the Queen prayeth the consideration of the court here in the premises, and that due process of law may be awarded against him the said J. S. in this behalf, to make him answer to our said lady the Queen touching and concerning the premises aforesaid.

This information is filed in the Crown office, without any leave obtained for that purpose. Neither the attorneygeneral nor any witness for the crown is bound by recognizance to prosecute with effect; consequently, the conduct, the continuance, the suspension, and the dropping the prosecution are left entirely to the discretion of the attorneygeneral. (11 Harg. St. Trials, 270.) As to the proceedings on the information after it has been filed, see Corner's Crown Practice.

Informa- An information in the name of the Queen's coroner, comtion by monly called the master of the crown office, is a formal master cf written suggestion of an offence committed, filed in the Queen's

crown

office.

Bench Division of the High Court of Justice at the instance of an individual, without the intervention of a grand jury. This mode of proceeding is an extraordinary remedy not often adopted. The information cannot be filed without leave of the court. It lies for misdemeanors only. (2 Hale, 151.) Although the court in its discretion may give leave to file a criminal information for any misdemeanor, yet they usually confine it to gross misdemeanors affecting the public welfare or public justice or where it very seriously affects an individual, and more particularly a public officer. The court has granted leave to file a criminal information for an attempt to bribe a privy councillor to obtain a patent of an office under government (R. v. Vaughan, 4 Burr. 2494); for an attempt to bribe at an election for members to serve in parliament (R. v. Robinson, 1 W. Bl. 541; R. v. Isherwood, 2 Lord Ken. 202); for bribing persons, either by money or promises, to vote at elections of officers of corporations (R. v. Plympton, 2 Lord Raym. 1377); for attempting to bribe jurymen (R. v. Young, 2 East, 14); and the like. The court also will grant a criminal information for a libel reflecting on the conduct of a private individual, if attended with circumstances of aggravation (a), and for a libel reflecting on the conduct of a magistrate in the execution of his duties.

(See

(a) See R. v. The World, 13 Cox C. C. 305. As to refusing an application made for extorting an apology.

R. v. Wait, 1 Wils. 22.) A letter between private individuals CH. XIX. containing abusive matter, but not inciting to a breach of the peace, will not support an application for a criminal information. (Ex parte Dale, 2 C. L. R. 870.) If a magistrate act illegally from a corrupt or improper motive, or if he abuse the powers entrusted to him from motives of resentment or favour, or to suit a political purpose, or the like, a criminal information may be granted against him; thus, where justices of the peace refused to grant licenses to sell ale to an innkeeper merely from motives of resentment for having voted against the justices political interests at an election, leave was granted to file criminal informations against them (R. v. Williams, 3 Burr. 1317, 1716, 1786); but such leave will not be granted where justices have acted from ignorance or mistake. (R. v. Jackson, 1 T. R. 653.) Words merely spoken are not in general the subject of a criminal information, unless they amount to a provocation to break the peace by their inciting to personal violence or a challenge. For words, creating an obstruction in the course of justice, uttered at the time when a magistrate is performing his duty, a criminal information may be granted. (Ex parte The Duke of Marlborough, 5 Q. B. 955.)

The applicant should, in general, apply to the court before taking any other proceeding for the matter complained of (R. v. Marshall, 24 L. J. Q. B. 242); and the court will not grant leave to file an information for a libel if the applicant has taken the matter into his own hands and made libellous attacks on the other side. (R. v. The Proprietors of the Nottingham Journal, 9 Dowl. 1042.)

The affidavit upon which the application, for leave to file Affidavit the information, is made must disclose all the material facts for. of the case, and connect the person complained of with the offence by legal evidence. (R. v. Stanger, L. R. 6 Q. B. 352; 40 L. J. Q. B. 96.) If the subject of the application be a libel upon an individual, charging him with a particular offence, the prosecutor ought to deny the charge upon oath (R. v. Miles, 1 Doug. 283, 284; R. v. Haswell, Id., 387); but if the charge be general or be against a public body of men (R. v. Williams, 5 B. & Ald. 595; 1 D. & R. 197); it is otherwise. The application should, in general, be made promptly and is for a rule to show cause why a criminal information should not be filed against the party complained of. If the court grant the rule nisi, it is afterwards, upon showing cause, discharged or made absolute, as in ordinary The motion must be made by counsel. (1 Chit. Rep. 602.) After the court have made the rule absolute, the information may be filed at the crown office, upon the prose

cases.

PART IV. cutor's entering into certain recognizances for costs. (4 & 5 Will. & M. c. 18; R. v. Filewood, 2 T. R. 145; see R. v. Brooke, 2 T. R 190.) As to the proceedings on the information being filed, see Cor. Crown Practice.

Form of.

Costs.

:

The following is the form of an information filed by the master of the crown office :

"Trinity Sittings, 25 Vict. "Middlesex.-Be it remembered, that F. Cockburn, Esq., coroner and attorney of our lady the now Queen, in the court of our lady the Queen, before the Queen herself, who prosecutes for our said lady the Queen in this behalf, in his proper person, comes here into the court of our said lady the Queen, before the Queen herself, at Westminster, on and for our said lady the Queen gives the court here to understand and be informed that," &c., so proceeding to state the facts constituting the offence as in an indictment, except that, in introducing averments, instead of the words, "And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present," are used the words, "And the said coroner and attorney of our said lady the Queen, who prosecutes as aforesaid, further gives the court here to understand and be informed that," &c. (conclude as in an indictment.)

The second and subsequent counts commence thus: "And the said coroner and attorney of our said lady the Queen, who prosecutes as aforesaid, further gives the court here to understand and be informed that," &c., so proceeding to state the offence, and concluding as in an indictment. And to the conclusion of the last count are added these words: "And therefore the said coroner and attorney of our said lady the Queen prayeth the consideration of the court here in the premises, and that due process of law may be awarded against him the said J. S. in this behalf, to make him answer to our said lady the Queen, touching and concerning the premises aforesaid."

Where, in a criminal information for a libel, the defendant recovers a verdict and judgment, he is entitled to recover from the prosecutor the costs sustained by reason of the information, under the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 96, s. 8, although the only plea upon the record is not guilty, and the judge at the trial certifies, under the 4 & 5 Will. & M. c. 18, s. 2, that there was reasonable and just cause for exhibiting such information. (R. v. Latimer, 20 L. J. Q. B. 129.)

SOMETIMES an indictment is removed into the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, at the instance of the prosecutor or defendant, by a writ of certiorari. This writ is sued out of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, and issued at the crown office. It may be sued out for the removal of an indictment before it is found by the grand jury.

In general the writ will be refused after conviction and before judgment. (R. v. Oxford, 13 East, 411, 412 n; 2 Hawk. c. 27, s. 31.

ments can

be re

moved.

The writ of certiorari is demandable as of right by the When crown, and issues as of course where the attorney-general indictapplies for it, on behalf of the crown (R. v. Lewis, 4 Burr. 2458), and this even though the certiorari be expressly taken away by statute; for, unless named, the crown is not bound by statute. In other cases it is in the discretion of the court to grant or refuse the certiorari. (5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 33; 2 Hawk. c. 27, s. 27.) By 16 & 17 Vict. c. 30, s. 4, no indictment, except indictments against bodies corporate not authorised to appear by attorney in the court in which the indictment is preferred, can be removed into the Queen's Bench Division or into the Central Criminal Court, by writ of certiorari, either at the instance of the prosecutor or of the defendant (other than the attorney-general acting on behalf