The claimant sought leave to challenge the imposition by the local Pubwatch scheme to impose a ban on him.
Held: The renewed application for permission to bring judicial review was refused. Ockleton CMG said: ‘the question of the identification of the proper defendant to these proceedings goes to giving the same answer. Without wanting to reach a concluded view on whether Buckingham Pub Watch is a person for the purposes of Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, it seems to me in the highest degree unlikely that an entity which has, and this is according to the evidence of Mr Diston, no constitution, no finances, no fixed membership, no rules and whose decisions are binding on its members only to the extent that they treat them as binding, on which again there are no rules – that an entity of that sort can be amenable to judicial review or can be a person exercising public functions under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act. Not only is there no evidence of a collective responsibility imposed on licensees, but there is, in truth, no collective capable of being described as a decision-making body, whatever the appearance may be in terms of the documents that emanate from individuals acting apparently on behalf of the Scheme’.
Judges:
Ockleton CMG
Citations:
[2008] EWHC 2224 (Admin)
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – Boyle, Regina (On the Application of) v Haverhill Pub Watch and Others Admn 8-Oct-2009
The claimant had been banned from public houses under the Haverhill Pub Watch scheme. He now sought judicial review of a decision to extend his ban for a further two years. The Scheme argued that it was not a body amenable to judicial review, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Torts – Other, Judicial Review
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.293925