The applicant had been cautioned by the police. The victim sought judicial review of that decision. The respondent now appealed.
Held: The court of appeal had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a judicial review in a criminal matter where there had been a final disposal of the matter. Any appeal must be to the House of Lords. The police caution operated as such, and no review would lay. The section referred to a criminal ’cause or matter’ not to proceedings. An official caution appeared to be a way of disposing of a complaint.
Maurice Kay LJ noted the use of the phrase ‘criminal cause or matter’ denoted a ‘wider ambit’ than merely ‘criminal proceedings’.
References: Times 05-Feb-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 1697
Judges: Waller, Longmore, Maurice Kay, LJJ
Statutes: Public Order Act 1986 5, Supreme Court Act 1981 18(1), Administration of Justice Act 1960 1(1)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Cited – Armand v Home Secretary 1943
. .
([1943] AC 147) - Cited – United States Government v Montgomery and Another HL 6-Feb-2001
An English court had power to make a restraining order against the disposal of assets pending an application for confiscation pursuant to a US order. This applied even if the US original judgment predated the date on which the US was added to the . .
(Times 06-Feb-01, , , [2001] 1 WLR 196, [2001] 1 All ER 815, [2001] UKHL 3, [2002] ILPr 27) - Cited – Day v Grant (Note) CA 1985
(January 1985) The court must look to the underlying nature of the proceedings in which the order was made and against which an appeal was sought to see to which court an appeal lay. ‘So Lord Wright was saying that you look not at the particular . .
([1987] QB 972) - Appeal from – Aru, Regina (on the Application of) v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police Admn 23-May-2003
. .
(, [2003] EWHC 1310 (Admin))
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Alexander, Farrelly and Others, Re Judicial Review QBNI 5-Mar-2009
farrelly_ccniQBNI09
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 . .
(, [2009] NIQB 20) - Cited – Alexander, Farrelly and Others, Re Judicial Review QBNI 5-Mar-2009
farrelly_ccniQBNI09
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 . .
(, [2009] NIQB 20)
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.193378
