Warring-Davies v Bradford Crown Court

A fair hearing is not denied merely because a judge intervenes firmly to keep a litigant in person’s cross-examination relevant and prevent argument with witnesses. The assessment is based on the proceedings as a whole. A transcript may not record tone or body language, but it remains important evidence of what occurred. Where the complaint is unsupported by the transcript and the judge’s interventions were directed to proper case management, there is no sufficient basis for alleging apparent bias or procedural unfairness.

The claimant sought permission for judicial review of the dismissal by Bradford Crown Court of his appeal against a speeding conviction. He alleged that the Crown Court judge had interrupted his evidence, used intimidating and abusive language, and thereby denied him a fair hearing.

The claimant also challenged the Crown Court’s rejection of his factual defence based on the time taken for his car to pass a traffic island, contending that this demonstrated a much lower speed than that recorded by the prosecution device. The Divisional Court considered the transcript of the Crown Court proceedings and the judge’s reasons.

1. Application refused. The renewed application for permission to seek judicial review was dismissed.
2. The claimant’s principal complaint concerned the judge’s interventions during his cross-examination of the police officer. The court recognised that litigants in person may find it difficult to cross-examine effectively and may unintentionally argue with witnesses. It was therefore proper for the judge to intervene to prevent that occurring and to require the claimant to ask essential questions.
3. A transcript cannot convey tone of voice or body language. The court nevertheless examined the transcript carefully and accepted that a raised or sharp voice could be intimidating. The particular intervention relied upon did not approach conduct showing bias or prejudice sufficient to deny a fair trial.
4. The Crown Court’s decision on the speeding evidence was a factual decision open to it. The timing measurement related to the car’s passage past a traffic island, whereas the speed measurement had been triggered at a different position. The Crown Court was entitled to rely on evidence that the speed-measuring device had been properly calibrated and that it would not have registered a speed of only 10 mph.
5. The court found no indication in the transcript or judgment of abuse, inappropriate rhetoric or bias. The judge had attempted to assist the claimant to remain relevant and had expressed sympathy concerning the conviction. The conduct of the appeal was fair.

• Bradford Crown Court: dismissed the claimant’s appeal against his conviction for speeding on 26 April 2006.
• High Court (Administrative Court): refused the renewed application for permission to seek judicial review of that decision.