Croke, R (on the application of) v Leeds Crown Court

Judicial review of interim case-management decisions made in pending Crown Court proceedings is subject to a high threshold. The claimant must show that the decision was unlawful, unreasonable or irrational in the Wednesbury sense. A reviewing court should respect the discretion of the court conducting the proceedings, particularly where an earlier judge has made a reasoned ruling and no material change of circumstances is demonstrated. Decisions about witness summonses and transcripts may properly be assessed by reference to proportionality and the overriding objective. Permission should be refused where there is no arguable case that the decision fell outside the range of reasonable decisions.

The claimant sought permission to challenge decisions made by the Recorder of Leeds and two justices during a continuing appeal against his conviction for two offences under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The proposed judicial review concerned the refusal to revisit earlier case-management decisions about witness summonses and the refusal to order preparation of a transcript of evidence at public expense.

The earlier decisions had been made by Judge Kershaw QC after argument. The Recorder declined to reconsider them absent changed circumstances. The central issue was whether that approach, and the decision concerning the transcript, disclosed an arguable public-law error.

1. Permission refused. The claimant had no arguable case for judicial review, and was ordered to pay £750 in costs, not to be enforced without permission of the court. An expedited transcript of the judgment was directed at public expense. Permission to appeal was refused.
2. Both the earlier decision and the Recorder’s refusal to revisit it were interim case-management decisions in a pending Crown Court appeal. A challenge required demonstration that the decision was unlawful, unreasonable or irrational in the Wednesbury sense. The threshold was high because responsibility for interim rulings lay primarily with the court conducting the proceedings.
3. The Recorder was entitled to require a change of circumstances before taking a different view from a reasoned ruling made by Judge Kershaw QC in the same proceedings. The claimant had not identified any genuine material change.
4. Even if reconsideration had been undertaken, the Recorder could reasonably conclude that the proposed witnesses were irrelevant or not centrally relevant to the issue in the appeal. He was entitled to consider proportionality and the overriding objective under the Civil Procedure Rules.
5. The refusal to direct preparation of a transcript of evidence was also within the Recorder’s discretion. Notes made by the Recorder and the justices could enable any later discrepancy to be examined.

The judgment was given on an application for permission to bring judicial review in the Administrative Court. The underlying proceedings were a continuing appeal in Leeds Crown Court against the claimant’s conviction. No prior judicial review decision is stated.