JUDICIAL REVIEW

[2020] EWHC 1611 (Admin)
[2020] EWHC 1611 (Admin)
DC (Dingemans LJ, Dove J)
19 June 2020

For the purposes of the Communications Act 2003 s.127(5)(b), the person who initiated the prosecution and brought the charges with authority to do so was the prosecutor.

[2020] EWHC 1292 (Admin)
[2020] EWHC 1292 (Admin)
QBD (Admin) (Spencer J)
22 May 2020

A claimant, as part of a judicial review which went by consent in her favour, was entitled to recover the costs of intervening in unconnected proceedings in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The criminal appeal had been determining the same legal point that the judicial review would have considered, such that the costs were “incidental to” the judicial review proceedings for the purposes of the Senior Courts Act 1981 s.51(1). The court suggested that the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee might consider issuing some formal guidance on the principles and practice of intervening in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).

[2019] EWHC 3046 (Admin)
[2019] EWHC 3046 (Admin)
QBD (Admin) (Kerr J)
15 November 2019

A government policy relating to the identification of victims of human trafficking, pursuant to the UK’s obligations under the European Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings 2005 and Directive 2011/36 art.11(4), was unlawful where it required that a referral for reconsideration of a negative decision could only be made by a specific “first responder” or “support provider”. That policy entailed an abdication of the state’s responsibility to perform the identification duty in cases where a negative decision had to be reconsidered in the light of relevant new material, and amounted to an unlawful fetter on the discretion to reopen decisions.

[2019] EWCA Civ 1841
[2019] EWCA Civ 1841
CA (Civ Div) (Underhill LJ, Simler LJ)
31 October 2019

The High Court’s decision refusing permission to apply for judicial review in proceedings relating to a murder conviction was “a judgment…in a criminal cause or matter” within the meaning of the Senior Courts Act 1981 s.18(1)(a), restricting the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction to consider the appeal. There was no basis for concluding that the denial of a right of appeal in those circumstances amounted to an unjustified denial of the appellant’s right of access to justice.

[2019] EWCA Civ 874
[2019] EWCA Civ 874
CA (Civ Div) (Davis LJ, Irwin LJ)
21 May 2019

The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal against a refusal of permission to apply for judicial review; by reason of the Senior Courts Act 1981 s.18(1) it had no jurisdiction to entertain the proposed appeal because the decision under challenge was in a criminal cause or matter. The court made general observations with regard to appeals from judgments in criminal causes or matters.

[2019] EWHC 1175 (Admin)
[2019] EWHC 1175 (Admin)
QBD (Admin) (Simon LJ, Farbey J)
10 May 2019

The Criminal Cases Review Commission’s refusal to refer a murder conviction to the Court of Appeal in the light of fresh evidence was not unreasonable or unlawful. Even if that evidence had been accepted, there was no real possibility that the Court of Appeal would quash the conviction. The court stated obiter that the commission should be given an opportunity to make representations at an oral hearing before permission was given to bring judicial review proceedings against it.

[2019] EWHC 514 (Admin)
[2019] EWHC 514 (Admin)
DC (Bean LJ, Simler J)
6 March 2019

A magistrates’ court’s decision to fix a trial date at which the prosecution expert could attend but the defence expert, whose report had been served in good time, could not was unfair. It was an exceptional case where the High Court should intervene at the pre-trial stage.

[2019] EWHC 394 (Admin)
[2019] EWHC 394 (Admin)
DC (Singh LJ, Dingemans J)
26 February 2019

When dismissing an application for judicial review of a refusal to discharge an extradition order following delay in removal caused by administrative errors, the court considered the meaning of “reasonable cause” in the Extradition Act 2003 s.36(8) and the impact of decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Supreme Court of Ireland.

[2018] EWHC 3122 (Admin)
[2018] EWHC 3122 (Admin)
DC (Hickinbottom LJ, Jay J)
16 November 2018

A slaughterhouse had been under a strict obligation to sever a chicken’s main arteries systematically and a concomitant strict obligation to spare the bird avoidable pain under Regulation 1099/2009 art.3(1) and art.15(1), as enforced in the UK under the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015 reg.30(1)(g). Social concern regarding animal welfare meant that it was appropriate to displace the presumption that proof of mens rea was required.

[2018] EWHC 2250 (Admin)
[2018] EWHC 2250 (Admin)
QBD (Admin) (Holroyde LJ, Green J)
23 August 2018

A final offer made by the Legal Aid Agency in respect of counsel’s fees in a “Very High Cost (Crime) Case” had a sufficient public-law element to make it amenable to judicial review. The offer in the instant case was unlawful because, among other things, the Legal Aid Agency had failed to disclose its method of calculating the fees offered.

Scroll to top