The company faced a prosecution under the 1968 Act, in respect of a brochure. On conviction, the company asked the Crown Court to state a case for the Divisional Court. The Recorder refused as to two points, saying that they were decisions of fact not law. The company sought judicial review for mandamus to require the case to be stated.
Held: The court heard an appeal which should have been brought by way of judicial review. The court gave the necessary directions, and proceeded to treat the hearing as such an application.
Simon Brown LJ suggested the appropriate practice: ‘(1) Where a court, be it a Magistrates’ Court or a Crown Court, refuses to state a case, then the party aggrieved should without delay apply for permission to bring judicial review, either (a) to mandamus it to state a case and/or (b) to quash the order sought to be appealed.
(2) If the court below has already (a) given a reasoned judgment containing all the necessary findings of fact and/or (b) explained its refusal to state a case in terms which clearly raise the true point of law in issue, then the correct course would be for the single judge, assuming he thinks the point properly arguable, to grant permission for judicial review which directly challenges the order complained of, thereby avoiding the need for a case to be stated at all.
(3) If the court below has stated a case but in respect of some questions only, as here, the better course may be to apply for the case stated to be amended unless again, as here, there already exists sufficient material to enable the Divisional Court to deal with all the properly arguable issues in the case.
(4) This court for its part will adopt whatever course involves the fewest additional steps and the least expense, delay and duplication of proceedings. Whether, as in Ex Parte Levy, it will be possible to proceed at once to a substantive determination of the issues must inevitably depend in part upon whether all interested parties are represented and prepared, and in part upon the availability of court time.’
Judges:
Simon Brown LJ, Turner J
Citations:
[2000] 1 WLR 2102, [1999] EWHC QB 271
Links:
Statutes:
Trade Descriptions Act 1968 14(1)(b)(ii)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Crown Court at Ipswich, ex parte Baldwin QBD 1981
Proceedings to challenge a Crown Court’s decision may be brought: ‘either by case stated or by judicial review, whichever is the most convenient in the circumstances.’ Donaldson LJ said that in the circumstances of the case: ‘it is much more . .
Cited – Regina v Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrates ex parte Levy Admn 16-Jun-1997
The court was asked whether a defendant can be convicted of driving while disqualified notwithstanding that, subsequent to the act of driving in question, he has successfully appealed against the conviction for which he had earlier been . .
Cited by:
Cited – Gillan v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 15-Feb-2007
Before committing the defendant for sentence, the magistrates court had itself decided on disputed facts behind the plea. After being committed to the Crown Court, the defendant asked that court to conduct a further hearing to determine the facts. . .
Cited – Vitesse Networks Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v North West Wiltshire Magistrates Court Admn 10-Dec-2009
. .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions, Regina (on the Application of) v Chorley Justices and Forrest Admn 8-Jun-2006
The prosecutor applied for an order to require the magistrates to state a case. He faced a charge of driving with excess alcohol. He pleaded not guilty. There were several adjournments, and a considerable delay. At the trial, and with no . .
Cited – Skelton, Regina (on The Application of) v Winchester Crown Court Admn 5-Dec-2017
The Court was asked whether the Crown Court could properly refuse to state a case for the opinion of the divisional court, having convicted a defendant, on her appeal from the magistrates’ court, of an offence of common assault. She was evicted from . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Judicial Review
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.253207