M, R (on the application of) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel

Permission to appeal may be refused where the proposed grounds do not disclose sufficient merit to satisfy the applicable criteria, even though the case is of great personal importance and could involve a substantial claim. The court may recognise the claimant’s circumstances and sympathise with the claim without granting permission. Where the merits are borderline or insufficient, the question may be left for the Court of Appeal to reconsider.

The claimant had previously obtained judgment on an application for judicial review. On 28 June 2004, the court dismissed all the substantive arguments but left open a question of relief based on the Human Rights Act.

The supplementary judgment followed consideration of the Outer House decision in Smillie, which had dismissed the corresponding Human Rights Act contention. The claimant then sought permission to appeal the June judgment. The central issue was whether the proposed grounds had sufficient merit to justify permission, having regard also to the importance of the case and the potential value of the claim.

1. The court had previously dismissed all arguments advanced in the judicial review, while leaving open the question of relief based on the Human Rights Act.
2. The subsequent decision in Smillie was relevant to the outstanding Human Rights Act issue. The claimant’s representative accepted that, despite an intended appeal in that case, the prospects of success on the Human Rights argument did not justify an application to the court or special consideration pending that appeal.
3. Although the court recognised the importance of the proceedings to the claimant, the sympathy naturally felt for a claimant in such circumstances, and the possibility of a substantial claim if the legal argument were correct, those considerations did not establish sufficient merit in the proposed appeal.
4. Permission to appeal was therefore refused. The court left it to the Court of Appeal to decide whether it should take a different view. The time for lodging an appeal was extended to 28 days, and detailed assessment of costs was ordered.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On 28 June 2004, the court dismissed the claimant’s substantive judicial review arguments but left open relief based on the Human Rights Act.
• High Court (Administrative Court): In this supplementary judgment, permission to appeal was refused. The period for lodging an appeal was extended to 28 days.