Lindridge v Chief Constable of Kent & Anor

Judicial review requires an identifiable decision capable of providing the focus and basis of the proceedings. It cannot be used to obtain a general inquiry into alleged wrongdoing, to require a police investigation, or to secure broad declarations about the treatment of patients. A county court decision cannot be challenged by judicial review. Where the claimant’s papers lack coherence and focus and identify no arguable claim for judicial review, permission must be refused and the applications rejected.

The claimant renewed an application for permission to challenge the Chief Constable of Kent’s decision to return items of her property. She also sought to challenge a limited restraint order made by Carlisle County Court on 20 February 2007.

Holman J rejected both applications on paper on 8 April 2008. The first was rejected because no judicially reviewable decision could be identified. The second was rejected because the county court’s decision was not reviewable by judicial review and had expired.

Before the Divisional Court, the claimant advanced wider complaints concerning medical treatment, alleged falsification of medical records, criminal conduct and related matters.

1. The applications for permission to bring judicial review proceedings were refused, and the wider complaints were rejected. The claimant’s papers and oral submissions did not identify any focused, arguable claim suitable for judicial review.
2. Judicial review requires a specific decision which provides the focus and basis of the proceedings. The court cannot use judicial review to conduct a general inquiry into alleged wrongdoing or to investigate complaints against doctors, public bodies or other persons.
3. The claimant’s request that the Chief Constable investigate alleged criminal matters could not be converted into an order of judicial review. Nor could the court make a broad declaration that would generally regulate the treatment of patients under human rights legislation.
4. The limited restraint order made by Carlisle County Court could not be challenged by judicial review. In any event, that order had expired.
5. Lord Justice Latham agreed that the essential difficulty was the absence of a decision capable of providing the focus and basis of judicial review. Judicial review was not a means by which the court could provide the inquiry sought by the claimant.

Holman J rejected the applications on paper on 8 April 2008. The Divisional Court refused permission and rejected the applications on the grounds that no reviewable decision or arguable claim had been identified, and that the Carlisle County Court order was not reviewable by judicial review and had expired.