Ratra v Lord Chancellor's Department

Permission to appeal should proceed on notice where the proposed claim raises genuinely arguable questions about the interaction between alleged judicial wrongdoing, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the procedural route for bringing proceedings. This includes an arguable question whether a claim concerning a judicial act may be brought in the High Court under section 9(1)(c) of the Act and CPR 7.11, rather than only by judicial review. The court may direct a substantive hearing before a full court where clarification of the procedure is likely to have wider importance.

Mr Ratra sought permission to appeal against an order of Mr Justice Henriques dismissing his application for permission to bring proceedings against the Lord Chancellor's Department. Permission was required because of a Grepe v Loam order restricting his ability to commence proceedings without permission.

He proposed claims for false imprisonment and breaches of articles 5 and 6 of the Convention arising from his committal for contempt after abusive conduct before a district judge. The central issue was whether the proposed claims disclosed an arguable case, including whether proceedings under section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998 could be brought in the High Court under section 9(1)(c) and CPR 7.11.

1. Permission application adjourned. The application was not regarded as utterly hopeless. It was directed to be heard on notice to the Lord Chancellor's Department.
2. There was an arguable issue whether breaches of the procedural protections applicable to committal proceedings could make the imprisonment unlawful in domestic law, and whether separate Convention rights under articles 5 and 6 might have been breached.
3. There was also an arguable procedural question under section 9(1)(c) of the Human Rights Act 1998. The court considered that CPR 7.11 might permit a claim under section 7(1) concerning a judicial act to be brought in the High Court. The point required fuller consideration and possible procedural clarification.
4. The judge agreed that Mr Ratra's conduct probably deserved imprisonment, but observed that this did not eliminate the possibility of a remedy if his human rights had been breached in the process. The parties were invited to consider alternative dispute resolution.
5. The matter was ordered to be heard before three Lords Justices, one experienced in human rights law, with a half-day time estimate. A transcript was to be made available at public expense.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): application for permission to appeal directed to be heard on notice before three Lords Justices.
• High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division: Mr Justice Henriques dismissed the application for permission to bring proceedings against the Lord Chancellor's Department on 6 September 2002.