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 trial, the Divisional Court quashed the remand decision adjourning the claim for damages. It was said that section 18(a) prevented an appeal. The Justices sought to appeal to the Court of Appeal, contending that given the termination of the criminal trial, the jurisdictional bar enshrined in Section 18(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 did not apply.
Held: The Court did not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal. It was argued that when the judicial review application was heard by the Divisional Court, the criminal proceedings were no longer in existence.
Taylor LJ said: ‘If the Divisional Court’s decision was not in a criminal cause or matter, in what type of proceeding was it made? It cannot have been a decision in vacuo and, for my part, I see no basis in principle or authority for attributing such a chameleon character to a cause or matter as to make it change from criminal to civil simply because the proceedings are concluded or because the review of the decision in such cause or matter may be too late to affect the outcome of the proceedings. In my opinion, the judgment of the Divisional Court in the present case was made in a criminal cause or matter’.
Lord Donaldson MR, emphasizing the words of Lord Esher MR ‘at whatever stage of the proceedings the question arises’ [in Ex parte Woodhall 20 QBD 832, at p. 836], added that this formulation: ‘is apt to include the stage at which proceedings are in contemplation, the stage during which they are being prosecuted and the stage which follows following the giving of the judgment of the court, a stage at which it can be said that the court is functus officio’.
Judges:
Lord Donaldson MR, Taylor LJ
Citations:
[1990] 1 WLR 1490
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Ex parte Waldron CA 1986
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 . .
Cited by:
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.
Judicial Review, Litigation Practice
Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.408586