Ward, R (on the application of) v Portsmouth Crown Court & Anor

Where judicial review succeeds against a Crown Court decision, remittal for a retrial may be appropriate where there is no material distinction between related cases and no resulting injustice.

A person involved in parallel proceedings has no legitimate interest in another person’s judicial review merely because the cases are connected. The public authority whose decision is not under challenge should ordinarily be an interested party, rather than a defendant. Costs remain a matter for the judicial review court’s discretion. Permission to appeal should be refused where the proposed grounds have no real prospect of success.

The claimant and the interested party arrived from Spain with substantial quantities of tobacco products. Magistrates’ courts made forfeiture orders, and the Crown Court dismissed their appeals. Following Hoverspeed [2002] 3 WLR 1219, the interested party obtained judicial review and his case was remitted for rehearing.

The claimant later obtained permission to bring judicial review proceedings. Mr Justice Walker quashed the Crown Court decision, remitted the matter for retrial, substituted Customs and Excise as an interested party, removed the interested party from the proceedings, and made no order as to costs. The claimant sought permission to appeal against those consequential orders. The interested party separately sought permission to appeal against his removal.

Both applications for permission to appeal were refused.

1. The claimant’s case was materially indistinguishable from the interested party’s case. There was no reason why remitting it to the magistrates for retrial would be unjust. The judge was therefore entitled to make that order.
2. The interested party had no legitimate interest in the claimant’s judicial review proceedings. His own claim concerned different goods and had been dealt with separately. His removal as an interested party was appropriate.
3. Customs and Excise was properly treated as an interested party rather than a defendant. The decision under challenge was the Crown Court’s decision, not a decision of Customs and Excise.
4. The order that there be no order as to costs fell well within the judge’s discretion. The claimant’s judicial review had not been brought promptly, and he had maintained opposition to remittal from 10 October 2004, a position rejected at the hearing.
5. There was no real prospect of success on any of the claimant’s proposed grounds. The interested party’s separate challenge also had no realistic prospect of success.

The court noted that matters raised concerning the interested party’s later rehearing appeared disturbing if correct and required investigation. It arranged a referral to a pro bono unit for possible assistance. That observation did not alter the refusal of permission.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): on 10 May 2005, refused permission to appeal on all grounds advanced by Ward and on the interested party’s separate ground.
• High Court, Administrative Court: Mr Justice Walker’s order of 14 February 2005 quashed the Crown Court decision, remitted the matter for retrial, altered the parties’ status, removed Boxall as an interested party, and made no order as to costs.
• High Court, Administrative Court: in Boxall’s related proceedings, Mr Justice Henriques quashed the Crown Court decision on 29 January 2004 and remitted the matter to the magistrates for retrial.
• Portsmouth Crown Court: dismissed the appeals against the magistrates’ forfeiture orders on 26 November 2001.
• Portsmouth justices: made forfeiture orders on 13 September 2001 under the Customs and Excise (Management) Act 1979.