Smeaton v Harrow Crown Court

A Lucas direction is inappropriate where an applicant seeks to establish special reasons to avoid mandatory driving disqualification. If the applicant’s supporting evidence is rejected, the consequence is simply failure to prove special reasons; the evidence is not being used by the prosecution to establish guilt. Questions about whether solicitors caused an evidential difficulty are ordinarily trial issues and are unsuitable for judicial review. A reviewing court will refuse permission where the lower court applied the correct legal approach, gave adequate reasons and made findings open to it on the evidence.

The claimant had been convicted of driving with excess alcohol and sought to avoid mandatory disqualification by asserting that his drinks had been unknowingly laced with additional wine. The magistrates’ court rejected the asserted special reasons, and the Crown Court dismissed his appeal on 27 October 2006. He renewed an application for permission to seek judicial review, alleging that the Crown Court should have directed itself about alleged lies and should have considered whether errors by his solicitors caused injustice. The central issues were whether those complaints disclosed an arguable error of law or were matters for trial.

1. Renewed application dismissed. The Crown Court’s ruling contained no error of law, gave sufficient and clear reasons, and disclosed a fair and balanced hearing.
2. Under Pugsley v Hunter [1973] RTR 284, an applicant relying on special reasons had to show that the drinks had been laced, that he neither knew nor suspected that they had been laced, and that without the additional alcohol he would have been below the prescribed limit. The burden rested on the applicant on the balance of probabilities.
3. A Lucas direction was misconceived. Such a direction concerns an innocent explanation for an admitted or alleged lie relied upon by the prosecution to prove guilt. Here, the applicant had to establish special reasons. If his supporting evidence was untrue, the consequence was only that he had failed to prove them.
4. The complaint that the solicitors should have admitted responsibility for providing incorrect quantities to the experts was a trial issue, not a proper basis for judicial review. In any event, the Crown Court had not been persuaded that the applicant was unknowingly given more alcohol than intended, so the first stage of the special-reasons inquiry failed and the subsequent issue was irrelevant.
5. Lord Justice Hughes agreed with Mr Justice Treacy. The renewed application for permission was dismissed, and an order for detailed assessment of the legally aided costs was made.

• Crown Court: On 27 October 2006, dismissed the claimant’s appeal against the magistrates’ court’s rejection of special reasons and upheld mandatory disqualification.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review was dismissed.