Quintana v Department of Work and Pensions

Judicial review cannot be used as a second appeal on disputed facts. Where a Crown Court has heard evidence and made findings, the Administrative Court may intervene only on an identified error of law or public-law unlawfulness. A claimant’s disagreement with findings of dishonesty does not justify reconsideration of the evidence. Article 6 does not create a further appeal on the facts.

The claimant had been convicted by magistrates of dishonestly failing to notify the Secretary of State of capital exceeding the permitted limit for jobseeker’s allowance. The Crown Court upheld the convictions after hearing evidence from the claimant and the Department’s witnesses. The Crown Court declined to state a case, and Collins J refused permission for judicial review. The claimant renewed his application, alleging defects in the charges, delay, unfairness, pre-determination, procedural imbalance and errors in the Crown Court’s factual findings.

1. Application refused. The claimant had identified no point of law capable of founding judicial review.
2. The Crown Court had considered the charges, heard the evidence and accepted the Department’s witnesses while rejecting the claimant’s account. The Administrative Court had no power to intervene merely because the claimant disagreed with those factual conclusions.
3. The proposed application was, in substance, an attempt to obtain a second appeal on the facts. English and European jurisprudence provided no such right.
4. No breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, or any other relevant provision, had been established. The recovery order and the other complaints did not disclose an arguable public-law error.
5. Mr Justice Lloyd Jones agreed with Lady Justice Hallett’s judgment.

• Bristol Crown Court: upheld the claimant’s convictions after hearing his appeal.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Collins J treated the refusal by the Crown Court judge to state a case as a refusal to do so and refused permission for judicial review. The renewed application was refused by Lady Justice Hallett and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones.