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

A judicial review challenging a refusal to state a case is not a means of appealing factual findings or reassessing the evidence. The case stated procedure is confined to points of law or jurisdiction. A Divisional Court hearing such an appeal does not act as a Court of Appeal on the facts and need not review evidential material such as CCTV footage. Where no arguable point of law is identified, permission may be refused as totally without merit. An extended civil restraint order may be made to prevent repeated proceedings concerning the same dispute, while leaving unaffected criminal appeals and proceedings outside the order’s defined scope.

The claimant renewed two applications for permission to apply for judicial review. The applications challenged decisions by a Crown Court judge and a recorder refusing, under the case stated procedure, to state cases for the opinion of the High Court. The underlying proceedings concerned convictions for common assault and an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. The claimant argued that the convictions lacked an evidential basis, principally relying on CCTV footage and disputing the assessment of witness evidence.

Permission had previously been refused on the papers. The central issues were whether the applications disclosed arguable points of law or jurisdiction, whether the court should adjourn or inspect the CCTV footage, and whether an extended civil restraint order should be made.

1. Applications dismissed. The claimant’s arguments were misconceived because they sought to challenge factual findings and the weight given to witness evidence and CCTV footage, rather than identify a point of law or jurisdiction.
2. The refusal to state a case was properly made. Under section 28(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the case stated procedure is concerned with points of law or jurisdiction. The relevant Crown Court judges had a discretion whether to state a case, and no point fit for further consideration by the High Court had been identified.
3. The Administrative Court was not an appellate court on the facts. A Divisional Court hearing a case stated appeal would not itself view the CCTV footage as though exercising the functions of the Court of Appeal. The footage was therefore irrelevant to the permission decision.
4. The claimant’s request for an adjournment did not establish a freestanding justification. His papers, skeleton arguments and oral submissions showed that he was able to present his case. The claimed prejudice also represented an attempt to challenge the underlying criminal proceedings by collateral means.
5. The applications were totally without merit. The court accordingly made an extended civil restraint order for two years preventing the claimant from issuing proceedings against Ipswich Crown Court arising from his dispute with a judge or recorder concerning refusal to state a case. The order did not prevent an appeal against the present decisions, an appeal against the restraint order, criminal appeals, or proceedings outside its defined scope.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): Permission had been refused on the papers by HHJ May QC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge on 29 April 2014. The renewed applications were dismissed by Mr Justice Jay, who also made an extended civil restraint order.