Lawson, R (on the application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court

A magistrates’ court may issue a warrant under section 83(2) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 when a confiscation-order defaulter fails to attend pursuant to a summons issued under Schedule 5 to the Courts Act 2003. The power is not confined to attendance for an inquiry under section 82. Schedule 5 also permits the court, on a fines officer’s referral, to vary payment terms and exercise its standard enforcement powers. Those powers include requiring financial information and ordering payment by instalments. A restrictive interpretation which left no effective means of securing the attendance of a non-co-operating defaulter was untenable. The renewed application for permission to seek judicial review was therefore refused.

The claimant had been convicted and made subject to a confiscation order. After serving the default term of imprisonment, he remained liable for the debt. A collection order was made under Schedule 5 to the Courts Act 2003, followed by summonses issued by a fines officer. When the claimant failed to attend, the defendant magistrates’ court issued a warrant under section 83(2) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980.

The claimant challenged the warrant, the refusal to withdraw it, a means inquiry, and an instalment order. The central questions were whether section 83(2) permitted a warrant following a Schedule 5 summons, whether the court could require information about means, and whether it could order payment by instalments.

1. Permission refused. None of the proposed grounds crossed the arguability threshold.
2. Section 83(2) is not confined by section 83(1). Its wording permits a magistrates’ court to issue a warrant where an offender fails to attend in answer to a summons issued by virtue of Schedule 5 to the Courts Act 2003. The added words referring to Schedule 5 were material.
3. R (Necip) v City of London Magistrates’ Court [2010] 1 WLR 1827 did not determine the effect of those added words. The claimant’s reliance on that decision was therefore misplaced.
4. On a Schedule 5 referral, paragraph 42(2) permits the court to vary payment terms and exercise its standard powers. Those powers included requiring particulars of earnings, resources and needs under section 14(1) of the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971.
5. The court had jurisdiction under paragraph 42(2) and paragraph 14 of Schedule 5 to order payment by instalments. An order for £10 per fortnight was within the broad discretion available, and any challenge to its exercise was more appropriately made before the magistrates’ court.

The renewed application followed refusal on the papers by Males J. The Divisional Court refused permission to apply for judicial review and refused the proposed amendment to the Claim Form.