Anwar-Lindley, R (on the application of) v Lancashire Justices

Where magistrates refuse to state a case for the opinion of the High Court, the proper course is ordinarily to insist on a case stated rather than pursue judicial review. A consent order may nevertheless be accepted where it provides an appropriate and practical resolution of the proceedings. Any application to quash a decision of a public authority should properly explain the legal basis on which relief is sought.

The claimant had been convicted by Lancashire Justices of driving with excess alcohol and careless driving. She requested a case stated, but the justices refused and acknowledged that their decision to convict had been unreasonable because they apparently had no evidence that she was driving the car.

The claimant then sought judicial review. The parties agreed a consent order quashing the conviction, entering a verdict of not guilty and providing for the claimant’s costs from central funds. The Administrative Court had to decide whether to accept that proposed route and order.

1. Order made. The court accepted the consent order. The claimant’s conviction was quashed, a verdict of not guilty was entered, and her costs were ordered to be paid out of central funds.
2. Proper procedural route. Mr Justice David Steel stated that the proper way forward would have been to insist that the magistrates state a case for the opinion of the High Court. He expressly declined to endorse judicial review as the appropriate route for correcting the magistrates’ error.
3. Practical resolution. Despite that procedural concern, the court considered it appropriate in the circumstances to accept the consent order rather than require the parties to proceed by case stated. The magistrates’ apparent lack of evidence that the claimant was driving explained why their convictions could not stand.
4. Explanation required. Lord Justice Laws added that the court attached importance to a proper explanation of the basis on which it was asked to quash a decision of another public authority.

The claimant was convicted by Lancashire Justices on 9 July 2004. On 11 August 2004 the justices refused her request to state a case. The Administrative Court accepted a consent order quashing the convictions.