Serious Fraud Office v Selby Justices & Ors

A magistrates’ court may withdraw an arrest warrant under section 125 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, but the power must be exercised on the basis of the relevant information being properly before the court. A warrant withdrawn during an erroneous administrative review, without the relevant information being laid before the court, is an improper exercise of power. The Administrative Court may quash the decision for error of law. The availability of fresh proceedings is not necessarily an adequate alternative remedy where the irregular withdrawal affects extradition proceedings, custody and the validity of the warrant.

The Serious Fraud Office sought judicial review of the decision of Selby Magistrates’ Court on 5 August 2003 to withdraw an arrest warrant and the informations in proceedings against Charles Alistair Forsyth. The case had originated in York Magistrates’ Court and was connected with extradition proceedings in Australia. The Selby court had included the case in a rolling review of old warrants in error and acted without notice or representations.

Permission was granted by Burton J on 22 September 2003, with an interim order preserving the warrant’s validity. The central issue was whether the magistrates had lawfully exercised their statutory power to withdraw the warrant and whether the Administrative Court should intervene.

1. Order granted. The decision of Selby Magistrates’ Court to withdraw the case and outstanding warrants was quashed.
2. Section 125(1) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 empowered the justice who issued an arrest warrant to withdraw it. The warrant could therefore be withdrawn by the court sitting at Selby, although it had originally been issued at York.
3. The statutory power was not lawfully exercised in this case. The relevant information was not laid before the court when it undertook the rolling review. The inclusion of the case in the list was an error, and the resulting withdrawal was an improper exercise of power.
4. The Administrative Court had jurisdiction to intervene. The approach in R v Bedwellty Justices ex parte Williams [1997] AC 225, that an inferior court’s error of law may be quashed by a quashing order, applied although the present matter did not concern committal proceedings.
5. Starting the proceedings again was not an acceptable alternative remedy. It would have treated the irregular withdrawal as regular and raised questions concerning the continuation of the extradition proceedings and the legality of any custody between the withdrawal and the issue of a new warrant.
6. Lord Justice Kennedy also expressed serious concern about the failure to record the May proceedings and the absence of notice to the informant, police officer and interested party. Mr Justice Royce agreed.

• Administrative Court: On 22 September 2003 Burton J granted permission for judicial review and ordered that the 5 August 2003 decision should not affect the validity of the arrest warrant. The Divisional Court subsequently quashed that decision.