Hamed v City of Westminster

An adjournment granted to enable an application to be made does not ordinarily create a legitimate expectation that enforcement proceedings will be adjourned again. Any indication must be construed in a common-sense manner. Filing an application shortly before the resumed hearing does not necessarily require a further adjournment, particularly where no substantive progress has been made.

A decision-maker exercising an enforcement discretion acts judicially where the affected party has had ample opportunities to present evidence, has a fair opportunity to challenge relevant evidence, and the decision-maker considers whether any sensible alternative is available.

The claimant sought renewed permission to apply for judicial review of a decision by District Judge Snow at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 19 May 2009. The judge had ordered that a warrant of commitment be issued following non-payment of a confiscation order arising from the claimant’s convictions for false accounting and obtaining money transfers by deception.

The claimant argued that an earlier adjournment had created a legitimate expectation that enforcement would not proceed if an application for a certificate of inadequacy was lodged. She also alleged that the district judge had failed to exercise his discretion judicially by refusing a further adjournment and relying on evidence given by her former partner.

1. Renewed application refused. The claimant had no real prospect of success in challenging the district judge’s decision.
2. The earlier adjournment did not create a legitimate expectation that a warrant of commitment would not be issued. The district judge was entitled to find that the claimant had produced no evidence that an application for a certificate of inadequacy had been made. The available material showed only an inquiry about the process and a postal receipt for something sent to the Royal Courts of Justice.
3. Even if the claimant had expected a further adjournment, that expectation could not reasonably be regarded as legitimate. The earlier statement had to be understood in context. It did not mean that merely lodging an application five days before the resumed hearing would necessarily result in another adjournment.
4. The district judge had exercised his discretion fairly and correctly. The claimant had enjoyed repeated opportunities, during the criminal proceedings, confiscation proceedings, appeal and enforcement hearings, to produce evidence concerning ownership of the properties. The history of the matter entitled the judge to conclude that there was no sensible alternative to issuing the warrant.
5. The absence of a legally represented prosecutor did not invalidate the decision. The officer responsible for the confiscation proceedings was present. The judge considered whether any method of enforcement other than the default term was available and allowed the claimant an opportunity to challenge relevant evidence.
6. Lord Justice Sullivan agreed. The appropriate practical step, if the claimant wished to pursue the certificate of inadequacy application, was to seek an expedited hearing of it.

• Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal: on 20 February 2009, dismissed the claimant’s appeal against conviction and sentence in the same litigation.
• High Court (Administrative Court): refused renewed permission to apply for judicial review.