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

An application requiring magistrates to state a case is made in time if lodged within 21 days of the court sentencing or otherwise dealing with the offender. The application must identify the decision, proposed questions of law or jurisdiction, and proposed grounds of appeal. A document may satisfy those requirements despite being terse or informal. A later document that amplifies and amends the original application does not become a new, out-of-time application merely because the magistrates delayed in identifying alleged defects. The magistrates retain power to refuse to state a case if the application is frivolous.

The applicant was convicted by Westminster Magistrates' Court and sentenced on 13 May 2014. Within 21 days, a letter was delivered to the court requesting that it state a case. The District Judge later decided that the letter was not a proper application under Part 64 of the Criminal Procedure Rules. A further, more formal application was submitted after that decision and was treated by the District Judge as out of time. The applicant renewed an application for permission to seek judicial review, challenging those conclusions.

1. Time limit. Under section 111(3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, the 21-day period runs from the day on which the magistrates sentence or otherwise deal with the offender. The application delivered on 2 June was therefore within time.
2. Form of application. Rule 64.2(2) of the Criminal Procedure Rules required the application to specify the decision in issue, the proposed questions of law or jurisdiction, and the proposed grounds of appeal. The original letter identified the decision and clearly set out the questions of law. Although terse and not carefully drafted, it satisfied the applicable requirements.
3. Effect of the later document. The document submitted on 1 August was an amplified and amended form of the first application. It was not a fresh application made out of time. Had the court promptly identified the alleged formal defect in the first letter, the solicitors would have been able to correct it within the relevant process.
4. The magistrates retained power to refuse to state a case if the application was frivolous. That issue was not determined because the court had no knowledge of the evidence beyond the complaints set out in the application.
5. The renewed application succeeded. The order was quashed and the Westminster Magistrates' Court was ordered to state a case.

Permission to apply for judicial review was initially refused on the papers by a single judge. On renewal, the Administrative Court allowed the application, quashed the magistrates' order and directed the court to state a case.