Northamptonshire County Council v Daleman

An application for committal to prison in civil proceedings is quasi-criminal, giving strong prima facie grounds for the engagement of European Convention Article 6(3). Where an unrepresented defendant’s circumstances and access to legal representation are unclear, the appellate court may require a transcript of the committal hearing before deciding whether the proceedings infringed Convention rights. The transcript may be directed at public expense and the appeal adjourned meanwhile. An extension of time may be granted where technical failures and serious issues justify allowing the appeal to proceed.

The appeal was brought by Mr Daleman, acting in person, against a committal order made by Pitchers J in the Queen’s Bench Division on 15 June 2004. The order followed findings that he had breached an interim injunction prohibiting the importation or spreading of waste materials on his land.

The appeal was lodged out of time, so an extension was required. The Court of Appeal raised the further issue whether Mr Daleman’s lack of representation at the committal hearing engaged and infringed his rights under Article 6(3) of the European Convention. The central issue was whether the available materials were sufficient to determine that question.

Outcome. The Court of Appeal granted the extension of time and adjourned the appeal for re-listing in January 2006. Costs were reserved.

1. Per Lord Justice Wilson, with Lady Justice Smith and Lord Justice Chadwick agreeing, an application for committal to prison in civil proceedings is quasi-criminal. There were strong prima facie grounds for considering that Article 6(3) rights were engaged. The court did not, however, determine whether those rights had been infringed.
2. The court could not establish whether Mr Daleman’s lack of representation resulted from inadequate information about publicly funded advice and representation or from his own choice. Although Judge Bray had encouraged him to obtain legal representation and he had received some unofficial legal advice, the circumstances remained unclear.
3. A transcript of the entire hearing on 14 and 15 June 2004, excluding the judgment, was therefore required. It was directed to be prepared urgently at public expense and supplied to the parties and the court. The Council could also obtain a transcript or full note of Judge Bray’s earlier comments on representation.
4. Because the transcript was necessary to address the Convention issue, the application and appeal were adjourned. A later committal application, which was linked to the suspended order under appeal, was not to proceed for its original purpose while the appeal remained unresolved, but could be used for directions for the efficient assembly of the proceedings.
5. Lady Justice Smith considered that the extension of time should be granted immediately because serious issues required substantive consideration and the delay involved technical failures. Lord Justice Chadwick agreed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): granted an extension of time, directed preparation of transcripts at public expense, and adjourned the appeal for re-listing.
• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division: Pitchers J made a committal order on 15 June 2004 based on alleged breaches of an interim injunction.