Haycocks, R (on the application of) v Worcester Crown Court

On a renewed application for judicial review of a Crown Court appeal, the Administrative Court will not provide a further general appeal on factual findings. Permission is justified only where the Crown Court arguably acted in a way in which no reasonable court could have acted, or otherwise committed a reviewable legal error. A refusal to adjourn to permit a late change of counsel may properly take account of the history and delay of the proceedings, the timing of the breakdown in representation, witness availability and the court time allocated. A general allegation of discourtesy is insufficient without supporting evidence. Where the Crown Court’s conclusion turns on factual findings which it was entitled to make, refusal to state a case may be justified.

The claimant sought permission to apply for judicial review of the Worcester Crown Court’s dismissal of his appeal against conviction for driving with excess alcohol. His complaints concerned the refusal to adjourn after his counsel withdrew, the judge’s alleged bias and discourtesy, and the refusal to state a case.

The Crown Court had found that the police acted lawfully and in good faith, rejected allegations of oppressive conduct, and upheld the conviction. The renewed application required the court to determine whether any complaint disclosed an arguable basis for judicial review.

1. Application refused. The court declined to grant permission. The Crown Court’s decision was not open to challenge merely as a further appeal on the facts. Judicial review could intervene only if the Crown Court had acted in a way in which no reasonable court could have acted, or had otherwise made a reviewable error of law.
2. The claimant’s reliance on Matto v Wolverhampton Crown Court [1987] RTR 337 did not establish an arguable case. The Crown Court had found that the police officers had reasonable grounds for suspicion, acted lawfully and in good faith, had not behaved improperly, and had not administered CS gas in the police car. On the information available, the finding of good faith could not be reviewed on the renewed permission application and was one the Crown Court was entitled to make.
3. The refusal to adjourn after the withdrawal of counsel was not arguably unlawful. Regulation 16 of the Criminal Defence Service Regulations provided relevant guidance by identifying circumstances in which a change of representative might be allowed. A similar approach could be applied to an adjournment sought to brief fresh counsel. The Crown Court was entitled to consider the lengthy history of the case, the listing delays, the fact that the breakdown occurred only on the hearing date, the readiness of witnesses and the court time already allocated.
4. The allegations of bias and discourtesy were insufficiently supported. Plain language by the judge did not itself establish unfairness, and the available transcript did not substantiate the complaint.
5. The refusal to state a case was also unassailable. Although the Crown Court did not expressly cite rule 64.7(6) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 or use the word frivolous, it made clear that the issues were factual. Its findings were available to it, and the outcome followed from those findings, making a case stated appeal hopeless.

Lady Justice Hallett agreed with Mr Justice David Clarke’s judgment.

The judgment concerned a renewed application for permission to seek judicial review.

• Worcester Crown Court: dismissed the claimant’s appeal against conviction on 17 February 2006 and refused to state a case.
• High Court (Administrative Court): refused permission to apply for judicial review.