G, R (on the application of) v Blackpool Borough Council

Judicial review proceedings must ordinarily be brought promptly. The three-month period is a limit, not a target, although the court may extend it where the merits are strong and justice requires. Delay caused by difficulties in issuing a claim may be relevant, but it does not justify extending time where the proposed claims lack substantial merit or concern matters that have become historical.

Judicial review is not ordinarily available to challenge a county court decision where an appeal lies. The court should exercise restraint in relation to magistrates’ court bail decisions and intervene only for serious procedural irregularity or error of law. A challenge to an emergency protection order may lose practical and public-interest significance once the order has expired and subsequent orders have been properly made.

Mr and Mrs G sought judicial review of actions concerning police bail conditions, the removal of their newborn child under an emergency protection order, and the handling of their attempts to issue proceedings. The claim sought numerous declarations and injunctions, including a declaration that Children Act 1989 section 45(10) was incompatible with the Convention.

Permission was refused on the papers by HHJ Rayner QC, principally because most matters were out of time and the claims appeared unmeritorious. The renewed application was itself late. The central questions were whether time should be extended, whether the bail conditions and emergency protection order remained suitable subjects for judicial review, and whether there was sufficient public interest in considering the compatibility of section 45(10).

1. Claim dismissed. The claim was brought outside the three-month period for judicial review, and the renewal application was outside the seven-day period. The court declined to extend time.
2. The difficulties encountered in obtaining fee remission and issuing the proceedings were relevant. Had the central claims possessed strong merits, the court would have been inclined to consider an extension despite the exceptional delay. However, administrative-law claims require currency and immediacy. The public interest requires prompt resolution of alleged maladministration, and time limits are therefore to be strictly observed.
3. The bail conditions had ceased before the claim was issued and had no continuing practical effect. The claim was therefore historical. The Administrative Court exercises a self-denying jurisdiction over magistrates’ court bail decisions and would intervene only for serious procedural irregularity or error of law. The magistrates’ court had not been joined, and the allegations would in any event have been unlikely to establish jurisdiction.
4. The emergency protection order had lasted eight days and had been superseded by interim care orders. The later family judgment had found that the children’s removal was justified on the facts, although the removal of the newborn had been unnecessarily hasty. The expired order therefore raised no sufficient continuing interest for judicial review.
5. The court declined to determine the compatibility of Children Act 1989 section 45(10). The provision removes an appeal against the making or refusal of an emergency protection order, but the statutory scheme contains safeguards, including applications to discharge an order under section 45(11). The issue might require fuller consideration in a later case, but this was not an appropriate vehicle.
6. The remaining allegations were not advanced and appeared to have no force. Costs applications concerning acknowledgments of service could be renewed on paper within 14 days.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): HHJ Rayner QC refused permission on the papers on 14 January 2011, principally because the claims were out of time. Mr and Mrs G renewed the application late. The High Court dismissed the claim and declined to extend time.