Murray, R (on the application of) v Birmingham Magistrates Court

Permission for judicial review may be refused where the claimant has delayed and an adequate alternative remedy is available. Compliance with the three-month time limit does not necessarily mean that a claim was made promptly. Delay may be particularly significant where the claim is issued shortly before a listed hearing and causes disruption.

Where an evidential ruling by a magistrates’ court can be reconsidered on a statutory appeal by way of rehearing, judicial review will ordinarily be inappropriate. The existence of legal professional privilege did not justify bypassing that appellate route.

The claimant sought permission to challenge a District Judge’s ruling that an accountants’ report was admissible in forfeiture proceedings concerning cash seized after his criminal conviction. He argued that the report was privileged and had been disclosed for a limited purpose in earlier Crown Court proceedings.

The claim was issued shortly before the forfeiture proceedings were due to be tried. Permission had been refused on the papers because the claim was not prompt and because section 299 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 provided an alternative appeal by way of rehearing. The renewed application raised the admissibility of the report and the relevance of CPR 31.22.

1. Permission refused. The claim was filed within three months of the District Judge’s decision, but it was not made promptly. The claimant had raised the admissibility objection late in the forfeiture proceedings and issued the judicial review claim only days before the listed hearing. The delay was disruptive and contributed to the refusal of permission.
2. An adequate alternative remedy existed under section 299 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. An appeal would proceed by way of rehearing, and the appellate court could make any order it considered appropriate. The admissibility issue could therefore be reconsidered without prejudicing the claimant.
3. The claimant could also have applied to the Crown Court, which had received the report, for an order under CPR 31.22(3) prohibiting its use in other proceedings. That opportunity had not been taken, despite the adjournment of the forfeiture proceedings.
4. The court did not determine the substantive dispute about privilege or the application of CPR 31.22. Sir Anthony May described those issues as a distraction in the present permission application, particularly because the parties had agreed before the District Judge that CPR 31.22 applied.
5. The renewed application for permission was refused. The court made an order for the interested party’s preparation of the acknowledgment of service, but declined to award costs for attendance at the hearing.

• High Court (Administrative Court): permission had been refused on the papers by a Deputy High Court Judge on the grounds of delay and the availability of an alternative statutory appeal. The Divisional Court refused the renewed application for the same principal reasons.
• Birmingham Magistrates’ Court: the District Judge ruled on 12 May 2008 that the accountants’ report was admissible in the forfeiture proceedings.