South West Yorkshire Mental Health NHS Trust, R (on the application of) & Anor v A & Anor

For the purpose of section 18(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, a court must characterise the underlying proceedings as a whole. It should not classify each order separately.

A Crown Court admission order made after findings of unfitness to plead remains in a criminal cause or matter. It is an integral statutory disposal of proceedings initiated by a criminal charge, even though it cannot result in conviction or punishment. It is not comparable with collateral restraint or confiscation proceedings. Accordingly, an appeal to the Civil Division from High Court judicial review concerning such an order is barred.

A was charged with murder, found unfit to stand trial, and a jury found that he had done the act charged. The Crown Court purported to direct his admission to a named hospital and to impose restrictions under the Mental Health Act 1983.

The NHS Trust successfully sought judicial review. Newman J quashed the Crown Court order, held that the statutory admission procedure under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 had not been followed, and remitted the matter to the Crown Court. A appealed as an interested party. The central issue was whether the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) had jurisdiction to hear an appeal in those judicial-review proceedings.

1. The appeal was unanimously dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The order made by Newman J in judicial review was made in a criminal cause or matter. Section 18(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 therefore barred an appeal to the Civil Division.

2. Per Pill LJ, with whom Chadwick and May LJJ agreed, the correct approach was to examine the nature and character of the underlying proceedings as a whole, rather than the particular order under challenge. The reasoning in [1943] AC 148 and the explanation in [2001] 1 WLR 196 supported that approach. The statutory language was not exhausted by proceedings which could culminate in conviction and punishment.

3. The Crown Court’s section 5 admission order was an integral part of criminal proceedings initiated by a charge of murder. It gave effect to the statutory disposal required after findings of unfitness and of doing the act charged. Its custodial character, and the possibility that the person might later be remitted for trial, reinforced that conclusion. It was not collateral to the prosecution in the manner of restraint and confiscation orders.

4. The fact that the section 4A procedure did not determine a criminal charge for article 6 purposes did not alter that classification. The relevant statutory expressions served different purposes.

5. Chadwick LJ additionally observed that, although it was unnecessary to decide whether section 5 jurisdiction related to trial on indictment, it was plainly jurisdiction in a criminal cause or matter. Pill LJ stated that any further challenge to the Divisional Court’s decision would require certification and an application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — unanimously held that section 18(1)(a) barred the appeal because the judicial-review order was made in a criminal cause or matter: [2003] EWCA Civ 1857.
• High Court (judicial review) — Newman J, on 27 March 2003, quashed the Crown Court’s purported admission order and remitted the matter for the proper statutory order. A citation is not stated in the judgment.
• Bradford Crown Court — Goldring J made the purported hospital order on 28 February 2001. Following remission, the Crown Court made an order under section 5 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 on 13 July 2003.