Latham v Northampton Magistrates' Court

A magistrate considering an application for a summons must exercise a judicial discretion and consider the relevant circumstances, including whether the allegation is vexatious or amounts to an abuse of process. Where a proposed prosecution merely seeks to relitigate issues already determined by another court, issuing a summons may itself be abusive, vexatious and oppressive. New material must have genuine significance and a rational bearing on the proposed offence. The High Court may quash summonses in such exceptional circumstances.

The claimant sought judicial review of two summonses issued by Northampton Magistrates' Court on informations alleging that he had knowingly given false evidence during earlier Court of Appeal proceedings involving the interested parties. The Court of Appeal had heard evidence from the claimant and had accepted his account, concluding that the interested parties had changed their pleas freely and without improper pressure.

The interested parties relied on allegedly new custody and witness evidence. The central issue was whether that material provided a rational basis for a fresh prosecution, or whether the summonses were an attempt to relitigate matters already decided by the Court of Appeal.

1. The summonses were quashed. The informations and explanatory material showed that the proposed prosecutions sought to reopen issues determined by the Court of Appeal. Such proceedings would be an abuse of process and would be vexatious and oppressive.
2. Under R v West London Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrates ex parte Klahn [1979] 1 WLR 933, issuing a summons is a judicial act. The magistrate must consider whether the allegation discloses an offence known to law, is within time, falls within the court's jurisdiction, is brought by a properly authorised informant, and is vexatious. The magistrate must consider the whole of the relevant circumstances.
3. The magistrates should have examined whether the alleged new material was genuinely significant or merely an attempt to reopen matters decided by the Court of Appeal. The material concerning the claimant had largely been available previously, and the custody records did not materially affect the Court of Appeal's findings. The material concerning the other barrister showed, at most, a conflict between a custody officer's account of the usual system and her recollection of events. It did not rationally support an allegation of deliberate perjury or an intention to pervert the course of justice.
4. The jurisdiction to quash a summons for abuse of process, oppression or vexation is exceptional, as recognised in R v Bury Justices ex parte Anderton and others [1987] Crim LR 683. This was an exceptional case because the interested parties were attempting to relitigate a Court of Appeal decision by issuing magistrates' summonses.
5. The court quashed the summonses against the claimant. It made no order concerning the separate summonses against the other barrister, who had not participated, but indicated that the Crown Prosecution Service could take the judgment into account. Any damages claim had to be pursued in separate proceedings. Costs were ordered out of central funds, subject to detailed assessment.

The judicial review concerned summonses issued by Northampton Magistrates' Court. The underlying matters had previously been considered by the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, whose decision was described in the judgment as 2004 EWCA Crim 491. The Administrative Court quashed the summonses against the claimant.