Shanmuganathan, R (on the application of) v South Western Magistrates' Court

Where an application asks magistrates to state a case, the justices’ clerk may advise on whether the proposed questions raise points of law or are frivolous. The decision, however, belongs to the magistrates. The clerk must place the relevant questions before them for determination. Judicial review may require the magistrates to reconsider questions omitted by the clerk, unless it is inevitable that those questions are legally unarguable or frivolous. A question concerning the legal relevance of evidence should be considered where the alleged advice may have been erroneous and the factual position remains disputed.

The claimant had been convicted by magistrates of two common assaults and sought to appeal by way of case stated. His solicitors submitted an application containing several proposed questions of law. The justices’ clerk placed only one question before the magistrates, who refused to state a case on the basis that the application was frivolous.

On judicial review, the claimant accepted that the magistrates’ conclusion was unassailable in relation to the question actually considered. The issue was whether the clerk had unlawfully filtered out the remaining questions and whether the court should require the magistrates to consider them.

1. Disposition. The claim succeeded to the limited extent that a mandatory order was made requiring the magistrates who presided over the trial to consider two further questions. A transcript was directed. There was no order as to costs, but an order equivalent to Legal Aid Taxation was made in respect of the claimant’s costs.
2. Under section 111 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 and rule 76(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Rules 1981, an application for a case to be stated must identify the questions of law or jurisdiction on which the High Court’s opinion is sought. The justices’ clerk could give robust advice on whether proposed questions raised points of law and whether their answers were so obvious that the application was frivolous.
3. The ultimate decision was that of the magistrates. The clerk could not prevent them from considering questions which had been properly identified merely because he considered them unsuitable. Since the remaining questions had not been put before the magistrates, they had not exercised the statutory decision-making function entrusted to them.
4. Judicial review remained discretionary. The court would not order reconsideration where the magistrates would inevitably conclude that a proposed question raised no question of law or was unarguable. The question concerning the relevance of the claimant’s good character required consideration because the alleged advice about credibility and propensity might have been wrong, and the factual issue of what advice had been given was unresolved. The question concerning evidence of the complainant’s alleged violence and damage to the claimant’s bed also required consideration for the same reason.
5. The other omitted questions were either duplicative, a general wrap-up question, conceded not to raise a legal issue, or inevitably unarguable on the facts described.

The judgment concerned judicial review of the magistrates’ refusal to state a case. The court ordered reconsideration of two questions which had not been placed before the magistrates.