Jones, R (on the application of) v Lord Chancellor's Department

The Court of Appeal has appellate, not original, jurisdiction. A fresh judicial review claim cannot be used to challenge an earlier Divisional Court decision; the proper route is an appeal. The court will not interfere with prosecuting authorities’ discretionary decisions unless they are unlawful or irrational. There is no general obligation to prosecute. Human-rights or European-law arguments do not themselves confer original jurisdiction or require a remedy through procedurally inappropriate proceedings.

Mr Jones sought permission to appeal from the Divisional Court’s refusal, on 17 October 2001, to grant permission for judicial review. The proposed review concerned the police and Crown Prosecution Service decision not to investigate or prosecute allegations of blackmail and conspiracy arising from his dismissal by CSC Limited.

He had not appealed an earlier Divisional Court refusal of permission. Instead, he sought to have that decision judicially reviewed by the Divisional Court. He argued that the Court of Appeal should consider the matter afresh and provide a remedy based on European Treaties and the Human Rights Act. The central issues were whether the present proceedings could be used in that way and whether the original decision was arguably unlawful or irrational.

1. The application for permission to appeal was dismissed.
2. The Divisional Court was not capable of judicially reviewing an earlier decision of the Divisional Court. The proper course was to seek permission to appeal that earlier decision to the Court of Appeal. The present court likewise had no original jurisdiction and could not provide the de novo remedy sought.
3. Although procedural technicalities should not unnecessarily prevent justice, Mr Jones’s failure to appeal the original decision meant that the present application could only potentially be treated as an out-of-time challenge to it. Lord Justice Latham nevertheless examined the papers and the original decision.
4. The prosecuting authorities’ decisions were matters of discretion. The court was satisfied that they were neither unlawful nor irrational and would not interfere with them. There was no obligation on the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute in the circumstances.
5. A claim alleging conspiracy would need to be brought by a properly constituted substantive action against the alleged conspirators or the company. The High Court could provide an appropriate remedy if such a claim were established, but that possibility did not support the present proceedings.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 5 February 2002, Lord Justice Latham dismissed the application for permission to appeal ([2002] EWCA Civ 119).
2. Divisional Court, Queen’s Bench Division: On 17 October 2001, Lord Justice Tuckey and Mr Justice Silber refused permission to apply for judicial review of an earlier Divisional Court decision.
3. Earlier Divisional Court: Lord Justice Schiemann and Mr Justice Poole refused permission, concluding that the prosecuting authorities’ decision was discretionary, lawful and not irrational.