The police had applied to a judge for an order under the 1984 Act requiring the applicant, a suspect in a fraud investigation, to produce documents falling within the definition of ‘special procedure documents’ under the Act. The applicants sought leave to appeal from a refusal of an order for judicial review of the decision not to disclose to them ‘special procedure material’.
Held: The Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the Divisional Court’s refusal to quash an order of the Crown Court for the production of certain documents under section 9 of the Criminal Evidence Act 1984, in criminal proceedings.
Sir John Donaldson MR said: ‘One thing is quite clear. The nature of an order made or refused in judicial review proceedings must depend not upon that order but upon the order that is sought to be reviewed. What was being reviewed in this case was an order under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.’
In this case: ‘It is to my mind clear beyond argument that the order which was made in this case was made in a criminal context, but it is right to note . . that there are no proceedings in existence . .I have not been able to find out whether this Act could or would be used where criminal proceedings have begun, but it does not really matter . . It is sufficient to note that no criminal proceedings have been begun here and, indeed, in most cases there is no doubt that orders would be sought under this Act where a decision had not yet been reached whether or not to prosecute. It is essentially a statutory provision in aid of a criminal investigation designed, if the evidence will stand it, to lead to a criminal prosecution. But unless it is to be said that an order under the Act is either never or very rarely one which is by its nature a criminal cause or matter merely because of the stage at which the order is made, then the fact that there are no criminal proceedings does not, in my judgment, matter. That fact stems purely from the nature of the Act and the statutory provisions and does not affect the criminal characters of the proceedings.’
Judges:
Sir John Donaldson MR, Stephen Brown and Croom-Johnson LJJ
Citations:
[1987] 3 All ER 684, [1987] 3 WLR 529, [1987] QB 963
Statutes:
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 14
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
No Longer Binding – Regina v Southampton Justices ex parte Green CA 1976
The court considered whether as the Court of Appeal, it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the Divisional Court’s refusal to quash an order estreating a recognisance.
Held: It did. Lord Denning MR said that ‘the matter is criminal’ if . .
Cited by:
Cited – Mehmet, Regina (on the Application of) v Clerk To the Justice of Miskin, Cynon Valley and Methyr Tydfill Petty Sessional Divisions CA 29-Aug-2002
The applicant sought leave to appeal refusal of a judicial review of the decision of the respondent with regard to the taxation of his costs under a defendant’s costs order. The review had been refused as out of time and without merit.
Held: . .
Cited – Alexander, Farrelly and Others, Re Judicial Review QBNI 5-Mar-2009
Each claimant said that they had been wrongfully arrested, the arresting police officers having either failed to ask whether the arrest was necessary (Farrelly), or mistakenly concluding so.
Held: The Order now contained in regulation . .
Cited – Guardian News and Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court and Another CA 25-Oct-2011
The claimant newspaper sought to appeal against a refusal by the respondent to disclose papers filed in a case before it. The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal.
Held: Under the 1981 Act no appeal would lie if the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Judicial Review
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.182944