Purnell, R (On the Application Of) v Snaresbrook Crown Court

Permission to apply for judicial review may be granted where there is an arguable failure by an appellate court to hear plainly relevant evidence and an arguable error in imposing severe penalties. Evidence from a witness who can directly support the claimant’s account should ordinarily be considered where no proper basis for excluding it has been identified. Pending determination of the judicial review, the court may suspend the impugned disqualification where continuation would cause substantial practical prejudice.

The claimant had been convicted in his absence by magistrates of four offences under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, after notices were allegedly sent to an address where he did not live. The magistrates imposed fines, prosecution costs and concurrent periods of disqualification.

On appeal to the Snaresbrook Crown Court, the claimant gave evidence that he had not received the notices. A witness who was present and purportedly able to support that account was not called. The Crown Court appeal was dismissed. The claimant sought permission for judicial review of that decision and interim suspension of the disqualification.

1. Permission and interim relief. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted. The disqualification was suspended pending the substantive hearing, as it had previously been suspended pending the Crown Court appeal.
2. The claimant had presented an arguable case that the Crown Court failed to hear plainly relevant evidence. The proposed witness was present and was said to be able to support the claimant’s evidence that the notices had not been received. The court identified no proper basis for excluding that evidence merely because the witness had allegedly acted irresponsibly.
3. The claimant also had an arguable case that the sentences imposed in his absence were unlawful or otherwise required reconsideration. The penalties included substantial fines and costs and concurrent 12-month disqualifications for each offence. The severity of those sentences was capable of raising an error-of-law issue independently of the conviction issue.
4. The court proceeded on the claimant’s account because the defendants had neither attended nor answered it. The factual matters remained for determination at the substantive judicial review hearing. The claimant was directed to include further relevant matters in his written statement.

1. Magistrates’ Court: The claimant was convicted in his absence and sentenced for four offences under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
2. Snaresbrook Crown Court: The claimant’s conviction and sentence appeal was dismissed. The judgment does not state a citation for that decision.
3. High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to apply for judicial review was granted, and the disqualification was suspended pending the judicial review hearing.