Percy, R (on the application of) v Corby Magistrates' Court

When a citizen seeks the issue of a criminal summons, magistrates must determine whether the alleged offence is known to law and whether its essential ingredients are prima facie present. They must exercise judgment on the material supplied. They need not conduct a committal hearing, but must refuse a summons only where issuing it would be an abuse of process or there is no material making its issue proper. A bare refusal, without reasons, is unlawful where the material discloses a proper basis for issuing the summons.

The claimant sought judicial review of the refusal by Corby Magistrates' Court to issue summonses alleging misconduct in public office against two Ministry of Defence police officers and assault occasioning actual bodily harm against a United States airman. The allegations arose from an incident at RAF Croughton on 19 February 2006. The claimant's related aggravated-trespass charge under section 69 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 had previously been dismissed.

The magistrates gave no explanation for refusing the summonses and did not respond to the judicial review proceedings. The central issue was whether the material before them justified issuing the summonses.

1. Judicial review granted. The refusal to issue the summonses was quashed, and the magistrates were ordered to act in accordance with the judgment by issuing them.
2. The obligations of magistrates were stated to be clear. On an application for a summons, they must consider whether the alleged offence is known to law and whether its essential ingredients are prima facie present.
3. Magistrates are not required to conduct what was formerly called a committal hearing. They must, however, exercise judgment on the material before them and decide whether issuing the summons would be an abuse of process or whether there is material making its issue proper.
4. The claimant's carefully stated allegations supplied sufficient material to justify issuing the summonses. There was no contrary material or explanation from the magistrates. Their bare refusal therefore could not stand.
5. Costs were ordered against the magistrates in the sum of £412.

The judgment describes the claimant's related charge under section 69 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 as having been dismissed by a District Judge at Northampton Magistrates' Court on 10 November 2006. The present Administrative Court proceedings challenged the later refusal to issue summonses.