Cleeland, R (on the application of) v Criminal Cases Review Commission

In reviewing a decision of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the court may and generally must consider the entire history and record relevant to the decision, including an earlier unchallenged judgment of the Divisional Court. A claimant cannot require the court to disregard relevant documents merely because he disputes the earlier judgment or wishes to pursue a further appeal by unspecified means. If the claimant declines to make oral submissions, the court may proceed on the written material before it.

Mr Paul Cleeland sought judicial review of the Criminal Cases Review Commission’s final decision of 27 September 2013 not to review his murder conviction case further or refer it to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. He relied on developments in forensic evidence and expert material. He also challenged reliance on the Divisional Court’s earlier decision in R (Cleeland) v Criminal Cases Review Commission [2009] EWHC 474 (Admin), and asked the court to adjourn so that the 2009 decision could somehow be put before the Supreme Court.

The court determined whether the hearing should be adjourned and whether it could consider the earlier judgment and related documents.

1. The application to adjourn was refused. The court was required to determine whether the Commission’s predictive decision about what the Court of Appeal Criminal Division would do on a referral was flawed in law, applying the very high threshold governing challenges to Commission decisions.
2. In assessing that question, the court was entitled, and it was necessary, to consider the entire history of the matter. That history included the 2009 Divisional Court decision, which had not been challenged and was therefore a final decision. There was no legal reason to disregard it, notwithstanding representations previously made to the Commission.
3. The 2009 judgments were also relevant because they had been exhibited to the claimant’s solicitor’s witness statement and identified as relevant to the amended application for permission. The Commission had taken the earlier proceedings into account in reaching its decision.
4. The court could not arrange for the status of the earlier decision to be put before the Supreme Court, particularly as the relevant time had long passed. The opinion of counsel, however eminent, did not determine the procedural issue.
5. If the claimant chose not to make oral submissions, the hearing would proceed on the written material, including the claim, grounds and skeleton argument before the court. The judgment records the ruling on the adjournment application; no final determination of the substantive judicial review claim is stated in the supplied text.

The judgment describes earlier proceedings concerning the claimant’s conviction and applications to the Commission, including the Divisional Court’s decision in R (Cleeland) v Criminal Cases Review Commission [2009] EWHC 474 (Admin). This court refused to adjourn the present judicial review hearing so that that decision could be pursued before the Supreme Court.