The court was asked whether section 139 precluded a mental patient from applying for leave to move for judicial review.
Held: A restriction on the bringing of civil or criminal proceedings imposed by the section 139 did not apply to proceedings for judicial review. Ackner LJ concluded that Parliament had not intended to bar the court’s supervisory jurisdiction ‘because, had it done so, there would indeed have been no remedy to quash a compulsory admission to hospital made a result of a reasonable misconstruction of a public official’s powers’ and that this ‘would have disclosed a serious inadequacy in the power of the courts to protect the citizen from an actual or potential loss of liberty arising out of a serious error of law.’
Ackner, Neill and Glidewell LJJ
 1 QB 824
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Blandford Magistrates Court ex parte Pamment CA 1990
The Applicant was charged and remanded into custody by the Justices, having refused conditional bail. Bail was later granted, but he sought judicial review of the original remand decision, just before his trial, which then intervened. After the . .
Cited – Ew v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others CA 11-Feb-2010
The claimant was subject to an order requiring him to obtain leave before commencing any civil proceedings. He commenced a private prosecution which the respondent later decided to take over and discontinue. He sought judicial review of that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health, Litigation Practice
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.408584