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

Permission for judicial review of a Crown Court’s refusal to state a case requires an arguable public law ground. Where the Crown Court has conducted the appeal as a rehearing, carefully evaluated the evidence and rejected the factual account on which proposed defences depend, it need not separately address defences that could not arise on its findings. An Article 6 complaint is not arguable merely because prosecution witness statements were treated as evidence in chief and the witnesses were then cross-examined, particularly where the procedure was not challenged, cross-examination was unrestricted and adequate preparation time was available.

The claimant had been convicted by Leeds Magistrates’ Court of two assaults by beating and appealed to Leeds Crown Court. The Crown Court dismissed the appeals and refused to state a case, giving the standard reason that the application was frivolous and vexatious. The claimant sought judicial review, arguing that the Crown Court had failed to consider mistake, non-insane automatism and self-defence, and that the appeal procedure breached Article 6. King J refused permission on the papers. The claimant renewed the application before the Administrative Court.

1. Permission refused. The claimant’s proposed grounds were not arguable.
2. The Crown Court transcript showed that the Recorder had carefully reviewed the evidence and rejected the claimant’s account that he had been rendered unconscious by a choke hold. The court accepted the prosecution witnesses’ accounts and concluded that the assaults had been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
3. On those findings, the proposed defences could not arise. Non-insane automatism depended on the claimant having been unconscious. If he was conscious, the suggested mistake and self-defence arguments did not provide an arguable basis for judicial review of the Crown Court’s decision.
4. The Crown Court appeal was conducted as a rehearing. Treating the prosecution witness statements as their evidence in chief, followed by cross-examination, did not arguably breach Article 6 of the Human Rights Act. The claimant had not objected to the procedure, did not suggest that cross-examination had been restricted, and had adequate time to prepare his case.
5. The court was not obliged to seek guidance from the European Court under Article 307 of the Treaty of Rome, formerly Article 234, after deciding that the application was not arguable. No further order was made on that issue.

• Leeds Magistrates’ Court: convicted the claimant of two offences of assault by beating.
• Leeds Crown Court: dismissed the claimant’s appeals against conviction and refused to state a case.
• High Court (Administrative Court): King J refused permission for judicial review on the papers. Mr Justice Supperstone refused the renewed application.