Wilkinson, R (on the application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions

An application for judicial review concerning pending magistrates’ court proceedings must be made promptly and, where appropriate, with a request for expedition. Delay may independently justify refusal. The choice of charge is principally for the Crown Prosecution Service where the offence charged is legally available. A charge that appears inappropriate may be addressed within the criminal proceedings, including by observations from the magistrates, rather than by satellite judicial review. The existence of a possible defence ordinarily provides an alternative remedy in the magistrates’ court.

The claimant was charged with possessing criminal property under section 329 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 after being arrested while riding a stolen mini motor cycle. He sought judicial review of the Crown Prosecution Service’s decision to proceed with that charge rather than charge handling stolen goods.

Permission was refused on the papers by Beatson J. The claimant renewed the application, seeking an extension of time and permission to proceed while the criminal case remained adjourned in the magistrates’ court. The central issues were whether the delay should be excused and whether the charging decision was arguably unlawful or amenable to judicial review.

1. Application refused. The application was lodged approximately six and a half months after the CPS decision and was not made promptly. The explanation concerning funding did not account adequately for the subsequent delay. Under CPR 54.5, and having regard to the need to avoid prolonged interruption of criminal proceedings, the court refused permission on delay grounds.
2. Where judicial review is sought in relation to pending magistrates’ court proceedings, promptness and expedition are essential. A lengthy adjournment in the magistrates’ court is inappropriate where an application to the Administrative Court could have been made earlier.
3. The court was unable to identify an arguable public law defect in the decision to charge the claimant under section 329 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Although the legislation was directed primarily at money laundering and serious criminality, the alleged conduct fell within the statutory language. The selection of the appropriate charge was essentially a matter for the CPS.
4. If the claimant had a defence to the money-laundering charge, the proper course was to raise it in the magistrates’ court, where it might result in acquittal. The Administrative Court should not interfere with the criminal proceedings merely because another charge might be regarded as preferable.
5. The court observed that a trial judge or magistrates might criticise an inappropriate charge and encourage the prosecution to substitute handling stolen goods. That encouragement did not make the charging decision unlawful. Satellite litigation arising from criminal proceedings should be discouraged, since most such issues can be dealt with within the criminal process.

Permission was refused on the papers by Beatson J. The renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review was dismissed by the Divisional Court.