Hoar-Stevens v Richmond Magistrates' Court

The Administrative Court should not intervene in ongoing magistrates’ court proceedings to control the conduct of the trial or review an interlocutory ruling. The court may direct magistrates to hear and determine a matter, but intervention to prescribe what evidence should be received or rejected must ordinarily await the conclusion of the proceedings. The principle applies even where an important disclosure or abuse-of-process issue arises during trial. The proper course is for the magistrates’ court to complete the trial and for the issue then to be tested, usually by case stated. Where there is no jurisdiction to grant a quashing order, a declaration is not an appropriate alternative.

The claimant faced prosecution for driving with excess alcohol after evidential breath tests were conducted on an approved intoximeter. During the trial, the district judge found that the prosecution had not fully complied with its disclosure duties under the Criminal Proceedings and Investigations Act 1996, but concluded that a fair trial remained possible and deferred any decision under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

The claimant sought judicial review of that interlocutory decision while the magistrates’ court proceedings remained incomplete. The central issue was whether the Administrative Court had jurisdiction to intervene at that stage.

1. Appeal dismissed. The stay of the magistrates’ court proceedings was discharged.
2. The court followed the principle in R v Rochford Justices ex p Buck (1978) 68 Cr.App.R 114. There is a distinction between directing magistrates to hear and determine a matter, and controlling the conduct of an ongoing case by prescribing the evidence they should receive or reject. The latter form of intervention is unavailable until the proceedings below have ended.
3. The later authorities did not displace that principle. R v Gateshead Justices ex p Smith (1985) JP 681 concerned a decision whether to proceed, rather than control of the manner in which a trial was being conducted. R v Chief Constable of Merseyside ex p Merrill [1989] 1 WLR 1077 concerned police disciplinary proceedings and did not govern magistrates’ court trials.
4. R v Telford Justices ex p Badhan (1991) Cr.App.R 171 recognised jurisdiction to prohibit the commencement or continuance of proceedings for abuse of process, but that was consistent with Buck. R v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court ex p Bennett [1994] 1 AC 42 likewise did not require intervention to examine the way a trial had proceeded.
5. It was important to avoid interrupting criminal trials with applications to test rulings which might later prove immaterial. The appropriate course was to complete the trial and then challenge the issue, almost certainly by case stated. If there was no jurisdiction to grant a quashing order, a declaration was unavailable and in any event inappropriate.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): The claimant challenged an interlocutory decision of District Judge Marshall in the Richmond Magistrates’ Court. The Administrative Court dismissed the appeal and discharged the stay, directing that the magistrates’ court proceedings continue.