Elliott, R (on the application of) v Stoke On Trent Crown Court

Judicial review is not an appropriate means of challenging factual findings or the credibility of witnesses in a criminal appeal. Where the proposed claim identifies no arguable point of law, permission may be refused as wholly without merit. Permission may also be refused for delay where the explanation for commencing the claim out of time is inadequate.

The claimant was convicted by North Staffordshire Magistrates’ Court of dangerous driving and failing to provide a specimen of breath. The Crown Court dismissed his appeal on 11 April 2008. He then lodged a judicial review claim on 18 September 2008, challenging the assessment of the prosecution evidence and asserting that the witnesses had lied. The claim was a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review. The central issues were whether the claim was brought in time and whether it disclosed any arguable legal error.

1. The renewed application for permission was refused.
2. The claim was out of time. The claimant’s explanation, principally that he had been attempting to obtain legal aid and determine the appropriate appellate route, was inadequate. Permission would therefore have been refused on the ground of delay.
3. The claim was also wholly without merit. The complaint that the prosecution witnesses were lying, and that the courts should have preferred the claimant’s account, raised a question of fact rather than a point of law. The evidence came from four police officers and a passenger, and there was no conceivable legal error capable of founding judicial review.
4. The claimant was ordered to pay £50 towards the interested party’s costs of preparing the acknowledgement of service. No costs were awarded for counsel’s attendance at the hearing.

• North Staffordshire Magistrates’ Court: convicted the claimant on 4 July 2007.
• Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court: dismissed the claimant’s appeal on 11 April 2008.
• High Court (Administrative Court): refused permission to apply for judicial review on grounds of delay and lack of merit.