Mistake of material fact leading to unfairness could be available as a ground of judicial review in respect of the determination of applications to adjourn trials in magistrates’ courts.

[2018] EWHC 229 (Admin)

The court had jurisdiction to make a declaration on a closed material application under the Justice and Security Act 2013 s.6 in judicial review proceedings challenging a decision not to prosecute. Although the case was not an appeal “in” criminal proceedings, since its outcome would not decide criminal liability, the words “criminal cause or matter” in s.6(11) were to be interpreted broadly.

[2017] EWHC 3056 (Admin)

As a Crown Court decision to remand a defendant in custody pending a sentence hearing was a matter relating to trial on indictment, the High Court’s jurisdiction to consider an application for permission to apply for judicial review of the decision was excluded by the Senior Courts Act 1981 s.29(3).

[2017] EWHC 2706 (Admin)

An applicant had not been sufficiently prompt and so was out of time to apply for judicial review of a decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland not to refer a sentence to the Court of Appeal for being unduly lenient. Neither a pending application for legal aid, nor an intention to try and change the DPP’s mind were reasonable objective excuses for applying late, and ordering the DPP to lodge a provisional notice of referral pending the outcome of the judicial review application was contrary to the legislative scheme and would cause hardship.

[2017] NIQB 66

There was no reason to set aside or vary a costs order made against the Director for Public Prosecutions in respect of judicial review proceedings brought against her. The DPP had failed to take any steps in the costs application whatsoever, without any good explanation.

[2017] EWHC 714 (admin)

The court reiterated that there was a “very high hurdle” to overcome when seeking to challenge a decision of investigators of the Serious Fraud Office. While none of the authorities precluded a challenge, they lent no encouragement to the bringing of any such challenge.

[2016] EWHC 2471 (Admin)

The court did not have jurisdiction to order an oral hearing to reconsider the refusal of an application for permission to seek judicial review of decision made in criminal proceedings where the claim had been recorded as being totally without merit.

[2016] EWHC 1760 (Admin)

The power to set aside the grant of leave for judicial review should be exercised very sparingly. The alleged breach of a claimant’s ECHR rights by a public body was a public law issue and he was entitled to assert that right in a public law court.

[2016] NIQB 42

The court was prevented by the Senior Courts Act 1981 s.31(2A) from making a declaration that the Secretary of State for Justice had failed to discharge his public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010 s.149 where the outcome would have been the same had that duty been discharged, since the claimants had not suffered any loss as a result.

[2015] EWHC 3599 (Admin)

In proceedings concerning the legality of search warrants, it was held that there was no general rule preventing an application to the Crown Court under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 s.59 for the retention of seized property until every issue raised in a judicial review claim had been resolved by the High Court.

[2015] EWHC 3415 (Admin)

A Crown Court had been entitled to hear an appeal against a conviction for assault in an offender’s absence as he had been notified of the time for the trial and had not given a satisfactory explanation for his failure to attend on time.

An application for judicial review of a decision concerning the availability of legal aid for defendants under the Legal Aid for Crown Court Proceedings (Costs) Rules (Northern Ireland) 2005 constituted a criminal cause or matter. Since the context of the proceedings was the requirement for the applicant to be afforded the opportunity for free legal representation in proceedings against him before the Crown Court, the judicial review application was directly relevant to the conduct of the Crown Court proceedings.

[2015] NIQB 60

By virtue of the Senior Courts Act 1981 s.29(3), the Divisional Court had no jurisdiction to consider an application by the CPS for judicial review of a Crown Court’s refusal to make a confiscation order because such an issue related to trial on indictment.

A person subject to the notification requirements of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 who wished to challenge a decision of a magistrates’ court to uphold a refusal to review the notification requirements should bring an appeal by way of case stated rather than pursue an application for judicial review.

[2015] EWHC 688 (Admin)

Marina owners who had each been ordered to pay £15,000 in costs following their convictions for constructing coastal protection measures without a marine licence were entitled to challenge the costs orders by way of judicial review. Considering the combination of the large penalties imposed and the offenders’ comparatively limited resources, the costs orders were unlawful and replaced with an order that the offenders pay a total of £5,400 in costs.

[2014] EWHC 2462 (Admin)

A judge did not have jurisdiction to order the CPS to pay an accused person’s costs under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 s.19 following a failed prosecution; that provision could not be used as a means of impugning the prosecutorial discretion given to the DPP and other state prosecutors by imposing costs on them. It was not the judge’s role to discipline the DPP for what he considered was an aberrant exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

[2014] EWHC 2014 (Admin)

Indemnity costs were awarded in a claim for judicial review of a police force’s actions in obtaining and executing a warrant to gain access to safety deposit boxes, where there had been material non-disclosure in the application for the warrant, and cash and information taken from the boxes had not been handled as they should have been.

[2014] EWHC 2061 (Admin)

It was not appropriate to allow proceedings for judicial review of the lawfulness of a search warrant to take place at the same time as a criminal trial which relied upon at least one item seized during the search. It was not in the public interest for a criminal trial to be disrupted, and it was open to the defendant to challenge the admissibility of the seized evidence during the criminal trial.

[2014] NIQB 57

The English High Court did not have exclusive jurisdiction to hear an application for judicial review, by a restricted transfer prisoner who had been transferred to Northern Ireland from England, challenging a decision of the Secretary of State for Justice of England and Wales not to seek advice from the Parole Board as to his suitability for open conditions. The secretary of state’s office was indivisible and present throughout each part of the UK so that she had to be considered to be domiciled in Northern Ireland, and accordingly the High Court of Northern Ireland also had jurisdiction in relation to the issues raised in the judicial review claim.

[2014] NICA 23

Pre- and post-trial decisions in the Crown Court concerning bail were amenable to challenge by judicial review. However, decisions concerning bail during a criminal trial could not be challenged by judicial review as such decisions fell within the prohibition in the Senior Courts Act 1981 s.29(3).

[2013] EWHC 2752 (Admin)

The Crown Court did not have jurisdiction to examine the circumstances of the issue of a warrant by a magistrates’ court. The ground of challenge to seizure provided by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 s.59(3)(a) did not enable an applicant to challenge the validity of the warrant, pursuant to which the seizure was conducted, in the Crown Court.

[2013] EWHC 1726 (Admin)

A defendant could not be guilty of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty if the officer had first assaulted the defendant. The initial assault took the officer outside the execution of his duty, meaning that an essential ingredient of the offence against the defendant could not be proved.

[2013] EWHC 1747 (Admin)

No opinion was expressed on the arguability of the proposition that, as a result of the decision in Lesoochranarske Zoskupenie VLK v Ministerstvo Zivotneho Prostredia Slovenskej Republiky (C-240/09) [2012] Q.B. 606, the principles derived from R. (on the application of Corner House Research) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2005] EWCA Civ 192, [2005] 1 W.L.R. 2600, as modified in the case of R. (on the application of Garner) v Elmbridge BC [2010] EWCA Civ 1006, [2011] 3 All E.R. 418, should be applied to applications for costs protection in cases falling within the UN Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters 1998 art.9.

[2013] EWCA Civ 628

In the light of the CPS’s new process for reviewing decisions not to prosecute, the court made the following observations. First, judicial review proceedings should not be brought until the CPS had had an opportunity to conduct a further review under its victim right of review procedure. In the ordinary case, if a challenge was brought before that right of review had been taken up, it should not be entertained by the court. Second, if there had been a review in accordance with that procedure then the prospect of success would be very small.

[2013] EWHC 1752 (Admin)

Where a court had rejected a driver’s evidence about his alcohol consumption, it was entitled to disregard an expert opinion that the driver had not been over the limit at the relevant time according to back calculations as those calculations depended on the honesty of the driver’s account.

[2013] EWHC 1129 (Admin)

Despite a substantial delay in applying for judicial review, it was in the public interest to quash a court’s decision purporting to lift a sexual offender’s notification requirements. The court lacked power to make that order, and the grant of relief upheld the rule of law and ensured that all applications to life notification requirements were dealt with under the same procedure.

[2013] EWHC 179 (Admin)

The approval by the Secretary of State for the Home Department of a Gatso speed measuring device did not require that a secondary check be performed in order to corroborate the primary evidence produced by the device for the purpose of a speeding offence. However, a speeding conviction was unsafe where a magistrates’ court appeared to have taken secondary evidence into account and it was uncertain that they would have convicted on the primary evidence alone.

[2012] EWHC 3827 (Admin)

The verdict of unlawful killing at an inquest could be returned only where death had resulted from murder, manslaughter (including corporate manslaughter) and infanticide. Driving offences causing death could not justify such a verdict.

[2012] EWHC 2755 (Admin)

The Criminal Cases Review Commission had not erred in refusing to refer a murder case to the Court of Appeal where there was no possibility of any appeal being allowed on the basis of the advice of trial counsel. No conflict of interest had arisen from the fact that the co-defendants had been represented by the same firm of solicitors.

[2012] EWHC 1462 (Admin)

Re-determination decisions purportedly made under the Legal Aid for Crown Court Proceedings (Costs) Rules (Northern Ireland) 2005 when they should have been treated as reviews under the Legal Aid for Crown Court Proceedings (Costs) (Amendment) Rules (Northern Ireland) 2009 were not amenable to judicial review because the jurisdiction under the 2005 Rules was analogous to that under the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980. The decisions were, however, void because of the court’s failure to consider the exercise of its discretion to allow intervention by the Lord Chancellor.

The court granted permission to apply for judicial review seeking Norwich Pharmacal disclosure from the secretary of state where such disclosure was necessary in the circumstances of the case and where the information sought could potentially assist the applicant in defending a charge in Ugandan proceedings which, if proven against him, could result in the death penalty.

[2011] EWCA Civ 1587

The Police Appeals Tribunal had erred when determining the onward progression of an appeal from a misconduct hearing; it had based its initial decision that there should be an oral hearing on a ground of appeal not relied upon by the appellant and had then rescinded its decision and made a redetermination that the appeal should be dismissed without giving the appellant any opportunity to make representations.

[2011] EWHC 3421 (Admin)

Where a party sought permission to apply for judicial review of a refusal to state a case, the court-defendant should provide the judge’s reasons for refusing to state a case both to the Administrative Court and to the claimant.

[2011] EWHC 2052 (Admin)

The European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.6 did not require a dedicated mechanism, such as a reference to the Parole Board, for a prisoner who wished to challenge the conditions imposed on him when he was released from prison on licence: the availability of judicial review was sufficient for the purposes of art.6.

[2011] EWHC 1332 (Admin)

Having refused three defendants leave to apply for judicial review of a distict judge’s decision to adjourn their summary trial for a third time, the court set out the correct approach to the adjournment of summary trials.

[2010] NIQB 132

Taking a pragmatic approach to an application for judicial review of the Crown Court’s decision that it was functus officio in respect of an appeal against conviction, the court set aside the convictions in question, it being accepted by the Crown that the claimant was not in fact guilty.

[2010] EWHC 3482 (Admin)

Whilst a prison governor, adjudicating a disciplinary charge laid against an inmate, was not an “independent tribunal” for the purposes of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.6(1), the power of the High Court to judicially review a governor’s decision to impose cellular confinement was sufficient to meet the requirements of art.6(1) in relation to the disciplinary proceedings as a whole. There was a need for a special disciplinary regime for the sake of timely and convenient disposal of disciplinary issues in prisons, and it would confound reason, common sense and proportionality to require that whenever an inmate disputed a charge of disobedience, a special adjudicator should be appointed to decide the issue.

[2010] EWHC 2522 (Admin)

The court underlined the need for promptness in bringing judicial review proceedings, in the context of a case where it had taken the CPS five weeks to decide whether to seek judicial review of a youth court’s decision to retain jurisdiction in respect of an accused, resulting in prejudice to the accused.

[2010] EWHC 2773 (Admin)

An extension of time would be granted to two judicial review claimants so they could challenge decisions taken by the secretary of state which led to their inclusion on an international list of those connected with terrorism and his subsequent request to have them removed from that list.

[2010] EWHC 1868 (Admin)

A chief constable’s provision of information to a prison governor concerning the potential risk of harm to a prisoner, should he be released on home detention curfew, was compatible with the chief constable’s duty to the prisoner under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.2 and was not amenable to judicial review.

[2010] EWHC 2297 (Admin)

A decision of a Crown Court judge in confiscation proceedings had implicitly been made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s.6, which carried a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal, and not under s.27 of the Act, which carried no right of appeal, and so there was no jurisdiction for the Administrative Court to consider the correctness of that decision in judicial review proceedings.

[2010] EWHC 663 (Admin)

In certain, very occasional, circumstances a court might have jurisdiction to consider a judicial review application concerning Crown Court proceedings, where the normal route of appeal was by way of case stated. Where the issue of credibility had been of central importance and a judge had intervened to ask for details of any previous convictions of the defence witnesses, but not the prosecution witnesses, there was an irregularity which was material to the proceedings.

[2009] EWHC 3540 (Admin)

A decision of a Crown Court judge to refuse to recuse himself from a wasted costs application he had initiated against a barrister was amenable to judicial review, as the decision fell outside the exclusion to the High Court’s supervisory powers under the Supreme Court Act 1981 s.29(3).

[2009] EWHC 1149 (Admin)

It was inappropriate to bring judicial review proceedings against a Jamaican Circuit Court’s decision to acquit an accused of murder, since it was for the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide whether to re-indict the accused, and even if the claim for judicial review succeeded, the criminal court would not be bound by the decision.

[2009] UKPC 13

The quashing of a conditional caution accepted by an individual would not automatically render, or probably result in, any subsequent prosecution by the Crown of the offence in respect of which the conditional caution was administered an abuse of process.

[2009] EWHC 594 (Admin)

A convicted person had a very high threshold to cross when seeking to persuade the Divisional Court that a decision by the Criminal Cases Review Commission not to refer his case to the Court of Appeal was unlawful.

[2009] EWHC 474 (Admin)

The Director of Public Prosecutions had not acted unlawfully in failing to publish detailed guidance as to the circumstances in which individuals would or would not be prosecuted for assisting another person to commit suicide.

[2008] EWHC 2565 (Admin)

A challenge to a decision by the police to withdraw protection from the court’s ward if an order for interim contact was made was a judicial review and could only be heard by the Administrative Court or by a judge of the Family Division who was a nominated judge of the Administrative Court.

[2008] EWHC 196 (Fam)

Where a Crown Court judge had imposed a confiscation order but failed to impose a compensation order due to an error of law, the Supreme Court Act 1981 s.29(3) operated to prevent that decision being challenged by way of judicial review.

[2007] EWHC 2763 (Admin)

Where the CPS had applied for judicial review of a default sentence of imprisonment after the offender had completed that sentence, it was unfair and prejudicial, in the light of the delay and the circumstances of the case, to remit the matter so as to revise the sentence and re-imprison him.

[2007] EWHC 1924 (Admin)