HM Attorney General v Willett

An application for a civil proceedings order under Supreme Court Act 1981, section 42, may be stood out where an existing extended civil restraint order appears to have achieved its purpose. A section 42 order regulates the bringing of proceedings; it does not address nuisance or harassment that falls outside proceedings, for which injunctive relief may need to be considered. Where participation in a hearing is difficult because of travel, a video link may provide a proper means of participation. The High Court may retain the proceedings where transfer to a county court would be inappropriate.

The Attorney General applied for a civil proceedings order against James Willett under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. Mr Willett sought transfer of the proceedings to the Torquay and Newton Abbot County Court, but did not appear or have representation at the hearing. He was subject to an extended civil restraint order made on 30 September 2005, due to expire on 30 September 2007. The central issues were whether the proceedings should be transferred, and whether the application for a section 42 order should proceed immediately or be deferred.

1. The application to transfer the proceedings to the Torquay and Newton Abbot County Court was refused. The proceedings were properly to remain in the High Court. Although the court regarded Mr Willett’s participation as important, a video link would provide a proper means of participation if he was willing to use it.
2. The application for a civil proceedings order was stood out until a hearing before the end of the summer term, or approximately July, when the court could assess whether an order under section 42 remained appropriate after the expiry of the existing extended civil restraint order. The parties had liberty to apply if circumstances changed.
3. The existing restraint order appeared, on the material before the court, to have had its intended effect in relation to the bringing of proceedings. That supported deferring the section 42 application rather than deciding it immediately.
4. Section 42 bites on proceedings. If Mr Willett was causing a nuisance without exceeding that boundary, a different form of relief, potentially an injunction, would have to be considered. The court made no final determination on that issue because the full position concerning alleged harassment was not before it.