The claimant applied for judicial review of a decision of a Magistrates Court to convict her of driving with excess alcohol. The grounds were that the district judge acted unlawfully in proceeding with the trial without disclosure by the prosecution of CCTV film of the custody suite. The court had refused permission to proceed with this claim after consideration of the papers and recorded it as being totally without merit. CPR 54.12(7) provides that in these circumstances the claimant may not request the decision to be reconsidered at an oral hearing. The claimant nevertheless issued an application asking the court to order an oral hearing to reconsider its decision, alternatively to consider whether the court has jurisdiction to make such an order.
The claimant’s application raised two issues:
i) Is it arguable that the court has jurisdiction to permit its decision to be reconsidered at an oral hearing, notwithstanding the terms of CPR 54.12(7); and
ii) Was the claim totally without merit?
Held: Though it was a proper application, the answers to the questions raised were, respectively, ‘no’ and ‘yes’ and that the application should was refused. The decisions of the district judge to refuse an adjournment and to refuse to order disclosure of the custody suite CCTV were unassailable.
The court had been wrong to refuse leave for the reason that an alternative avenue of appeal was available. The court should have addressed the substance of the claim. Addressing that material, it was however clear from the material which was before the court when the order was made that the claim was indeed bound to fail.
Leggatt J
[2016] EWHC 1760 (Admin)
Bailii
Senior Courts Act 1981 18(1)(a), Civil Procedure Rules 52.15(1A)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Grace, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 9-Jun-2014
What is ‘totally without merit’?
The claimant had sought judicial review. Her case had been certified as being ‘totally without merit’, thus denying to her any opportunity to renew her application for leave at an oral hearing, leaving only recourse to a judge of the Court of Appeal . .
Cited – Regina v Hereford Magistrates’ Court (ex parte Rowlands, Ingram); Regina v Harrow Youth Court (ex parte Prussia) Admn 10-Feb-1997
The power to adjourn a trial is conferred upon Justices by statute. The divisional court will intervene where defendants have been deprived of a fair opportunity to present their case. The decision whether to grant an adjournment is not a mechanical . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Petrie Admn 21-Jan-2015
The Director appealed against discharge of their prosecution for abuse of process. On the date fixed for the trial of the Respondent on a charge of driving with excess alcohol in his breath, it was common ground that CCTV footage from the police . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Judicial Review, Criminal Practice
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.567035