Lane v Gloucester Magistrates Court

A statutory appeal route does not prevent judicial review where the decision-making process is alleged to be defective, unless judicial review is expressly excluded. Judicial review remains supervisory: it cannot be used as an appeal on the merits. A magistrates court’s finding of contempt under Contempt of Court Act 1981, section 12, will not be irrational where the evidence reasonably supports a finding that the defendant wilfully insulted an officer of the court. Difficulties in hearing or understanding the proceedings do not establish procedural unfairness where the evidence shows that the defendant understood the relevant warnings and had a fair opportunity to respond.

The claimant was committed by Gloucester Magistrates’ Court to seven days’ imprisonment for contempt after repeatedly calling a court officer a liar and disrupting proceedings. The committal was made under section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

The claimant initially sought to appeal in the Administrative Court. He accepted the court’s explanation that the statutory appeal lay to the Crown Court under section 108 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. The papers were therefore treated as an application for permission to bring judicial review proceedings. The issues were whether procedural defects, including difficulty hearing, had occurred and whether the committal was perverse.

1. Disposition. The application for permission to bring judicial review proceedings was refused. The documentary evidence and video recording disclosed no arguable basis for judicial review.
2. Section 12(5) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 applies the statutory appeal procedure in section 108 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 to an order made under section 12. The claimant therefore had no right to appeal to the Administrative Court by case stated or otherwise. Judicial review was nevertheless available because it was not excluded by statute.
3. Judicial review could address an error in the decision-making process, but could not provide a means of challenging the committal on its merits. The claimant’s hearing difficulty did not establish procedural unfairness. The evidence showed that he understood the warnings about contempt and had been warned more than once.
4. The finding that the claimant had insulted an officer of the court was not perverse. Calling the officer a deliberate liar, repeatedly and in the circumstances described, amounted to an insult within section 12(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. It was open to a reasonable judge to conclude that the statutory conditions were satisfied.
5. The video evidence also supported the court’s assessment of the claimant’s conduct and showed no use of force by the police beyond what was reasonably necessary. The court therefore refused permission to seek judicial review.

1. Gloucester Magistrates’ Court: committed the claimant to seven days’ imprisonment for contempt under section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): treated the claimant’s papers as an application for permission to seek judicial review and refused permission.