Forest Heath District Council, R (on the application of) v North West Suffolk (Mildenhall) Magistrates' Court

An application requiring magistrates to state a case may properly be rejected as frivolous where it is futile, misconceived, hopeless or academic. The power should be exercised sparingly and not merely because the magistrates believe their decision to be correct.

A factual finding amounts to an error of law where it has no evidential foundation or no reasonable tribunal, properly directed, could have reached it. By contrast, choosing between conflicting bodies of evidence ordinarily raises only an issue of fact. Any challenge should then be pursued through the available factual appeal rather than by case stated.

The magistrates allowed a land occupier's appeal against a noise abatement notice served by the District Council under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The Council did not exercise its statutory right of appeal to the Crown Court. It instead asked the magistrates to state a case under the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

The magistrates considered the proposed questions frivolous and refused. Ognall J granted mandamus requiring them to state a case, reasoning that their affidavit suggested a failure to consider significant evidence. The magistrates appealed. The central issues were whether the questions were frivolous, whether the affidavit had been misconstrued, and whether the Council's challenge disclosed an error of law rather than a disagreement about facts.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. Lord Bingham of Cornhill LCJ held that the proposed case stated was properly regarded as frivolous. Millett LJ agreed and gave concurring reasons. Potter LJ agreed with both judgments. The order of mandamus was quashed, with costs.
2. In the context of section 111(5) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, “frivolous” means futile, misconceived, hopeless or academic. Magistrates should reach that conclusion only rarely and should not do so merely because they regard their own decision as correct or immune from challenge. Brief reasons for a refusal are desirable because an unexplained decision may cause uncertainty, unnecessary litigation and costs.
3. Ognall J had treated the chairman's affidavit as though it contained the magistrates' full reasoning on the merits. It did not. It explained why they considered the proposed questions irrelevant, inappropriate or academic. Read fairly, it repeatedly stated that all the evidence had been considered and provided no basis for finding that significant evidence had been overlooked.
4. Per Lord Bingham LCJ, applying Bracegirdle v Oxley and Cobley [1947] KB 349, a factual finding without evidential foundation, or a conclusion which no reasonable bench properly directed could reach, is perverse and constitutes an error of law. It is not ordinarily perverse to prefer one witness or body of evidence over another where the evidence conflicts. Absent special and unusual circumstances, an alleged mistake of that kind is an error of fact for a factual appeal.
5. Millett LJ held that the first three questions were academic because they attributed approaches to the magistrates which the magistrates had not adopted. The fourth was inappropriate because there plainly was evidence supporting the decision. The Council's true complaint was that contrary evidence outweighed it. That issue was suitable for a rehearing in the Crown Court, not determination by case stated.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The magistrates' appeal was allowed unanimously. Ognall J's order of mandamus was quashed, with costs.
2. High Court, Queen's Bench Division: Ognall J granted mandamus requiring the magistrates to state a case on four questions.
3. North West Suffolk (Mildenhall) Magistrates' Court: The magistrates quashed the noise abatement notice and subsequently refused the District Council's application to state a case as frivolous.