Bacon, R (on the application of) v Salisbury District Council

A magistrates’ finding of wilful refusal to pay council tax may be vitiated by a material error of fact concerning the defendant’s financial resources. Where the information before the magistrates materially misstates the defendant’s ability to pay, and the error underlies the finding of wilful refusal, permission to apply for judicial review should be granted. The court should also take account of the defendant’s personal circumstances, including age, mental capacity and health, while exercising appropriate restraint where inconsistent accounts have been given.

Ronald Bacon sought permission to apply for judicial review of his committal to prison for 21 days by Salisbury Magistrates’ Court, following a finding that he had wilfully refused to pay council tax arrears of £6,255. The magistrates had believed that he had access to approximately £62,000, whereas information from his accountants indicated that pension policies had been realised in bankruptcy proceedings in 1993 and that he had no interest in them. He was represented when the committal decision was made. The central issue was whether the magistrates’ finding had been based on a material misunderstanding of his available resources.

1. Permission granted. The claimant’s bail was continued. The court hoped that the matter could be resolved without a full judicial review hearing once the true facts were drawn to the attention of the magistrates and the interested party.
2. The magistrates had proceeded on the apparent belief that the claimant had private funds of about £62,000 with which he could pay the council tax arrears. The available evidence showed that the pension policies to which that belief related had been realised by a trustee in bankruptcy in 1993, with the proceeds accounted for to creditors. The claimant had only limited access to pension income, from which he could pay approximately £470 per year.
3. The true position had not been made plain to the magistrates. Had it been, they would not have concluded that the claimant had more money available than the sum offered on his behalf. Their finding of wilful refusal was therefore vitiated by an underlying material error of fact.
4. The court also regarded it as regrettable that insufficient account appeared to have been taken of the claimant’s age, state of mind and health, including evidence of declining mental capacity. Although a person giving inconsistent accounts cannot expect considerable sympathy, such matters should be considered with restraint and breadth of judgment.

The judgment describes the claimant’s earlier appearances before Salisbury Magistrates’ Court, including the finding of wilful refusal on 27 October 2008 and his committal to prison on 14 November 2008. No appeal history is stated.