Ezeugo, R (on the application of) v Ipswich Crown Court

The claimant brought two renewed applications for permission to apply for judicial review challenging decisions of Crown Court judges refusing to state a case for the opinion of the High Court. The court treated the challenges as judicial review applications of refusals to state a case under section 28(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and considered the certificate issued under Criminal Procedure Rule 64.6(6).

The judge held that the claimant's complaints were effectively appeals on questions of fact and assessment of evidence (including CCTV) rather than points of law suitable for the case-stated procedure. The Crown Court judges had discretion and properly concluded the applications were frivolous and failed to identify a question of law to be stated. Permission to apply for judicial review was refused and the applications were dismissed as totally without merit. An extended civil restraint order was made to prevent further proceedings against Ipswich Crown Court concerning failure to state a case for the opinion of the High Court for a period of two years.

Background and parties:

• The claimant is a serving prisoner (currently at HMP Chelmsford) who sought judicial review of decisions by Ipswich Crown Court judges refusing to state a case for the opinion of the High Court.
• Two renewed applications for leave to apply for judicial review (CO/1417/2014 and CO/1419/2014) followed an earlier refusal on the papers by HHJ May QC on 29 April 2014 and an adjournment by Collins J on 24 October 2014 because the claimant lacked access to his papers in prison.

Facts and procedural posture:

• CO/1417 challenged HHJ Devaux's refusal on 28 February 2014 to state a case following the claimant's appeal to the Crown Court against a common assault conviction entered at Southeast Suffolk Magistrates' Court on 24 June 2013. HHJ Devaux issued a certificate under Criminal Procedure Rule 64.6(6) that the application was frivolous and criticised the claimant's failure to specify the question(s) of law.
• CO/1419 challenged Mr Recorder Nicklin QC's refusal on 24 January 2014 to state a case following an appeal against conviction under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 (also a conviction at Southeast Suffolk Magistrates' Court on 24 June 2013). The Recorder gave reasons that the application was an attempt to re-litigate factual findings and the assessment of evidence (including CCTV) and was therefore misconceived.

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether the claimant's complaints raised points of law appropriate for the case-stated procedure or were factual challenges to findings of the magistrates and Crown Court.
• Whether an adjournment to obtain access to papers was necessary and whether the court should view the CCTV footage.
• Whether the refusals to state a case were properly characterised as frivolous and whether permission for judicial review should be granted.

Court's reasoning and decision:

• The judge determined the applications on the papers and oral submissions without adjourning: the materials were sufficiently comprehensive, and the claimant had been able to prepare written skeleton arguments and oral submissions.
• The court would not view the CCTV footage because it was irrelevant to the legal question of whether a case should be stated; the case-stated procedure is confined to questions of law and the Divisional Court does not view evidence as if it were a Court of Appeal.
• The claimant's complaints were primarily factual and amounted to an attempt to re-argue the weight and assessment of evidence. Those were not points of law capable of forming the basis of a case stated. The Crown Court judges had discretion and were entitled to conclude the applications were frivolous, including because the claimant failed to identify the question(s) of law.
• Accordingly, permission to bring judicial review was refused and the renewed applications were dismissed as totally without merit. An extended civil restraint order was imposed preventing the claimant from issuing proceedings against Ipswich Crown Court in relation to disputes over failure to state a case for two years, while preserving the claimant's right to pursue appeals or other matters outside the order's scope.

The court emphasised that matters relating to the claimant's separate Health and Safety at Work Act conviction and any criminal appeal were not before this court and remain within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division or the appropriate criminal appeal processes.

Permission to apply for judicial review was refused and the renewed applications were dismissed as totally without merit. The court held that the challenges were factual appeals, not points of law appropriate for a case stated; the Crown Court judges had discretion to refuse to state a case and were entitled to treat the applications as frivolous. The court made an extended civil restraint order preventing proceedings against Ipswich Crown Court concerning failure to state a case for two years, while leaving open proper appeals or claims outside the order's scope.

Prior permission was refused on the papers by HHJ May QC on 29 April 2014. The matters were earlier adjourned by Collins J on 24 October 2014 because the claimant lacked access to his papers in prison. The present decision is at first instance in the Administrative Court.