Wilmot, R (on the application of) v Taunton Deane and West Somerset Magistrates' Court & Ors

An application to reopen a judicial review judgment under CPR 39.3 requires prompt action, a good reason for non-attendance and a reasonable prospect of success. An unequivocal guilty plea cannot be made conditional upon later disclosure by the prosecution. A stay or quashing order based on abuse of process requires more than prosecutorial misconduct: the court must assess the effect on the integrity of the criminal justice system, including prejudice and unfairness. Private committal proceedings based on alleged false evidence require a strong, properly evidenced case and must serve the public interest.

The claimant had pleaded guilty to eight planning offences concerning works to a listed building and later challenged decisions refusing extensions of time to appeal. The Divisional Court partly allowed his judicial review, but rejected challenges to the convictions and the allegation that the prosecution was an abuse of process: [2013] EWHC 1399 (Admin).

He sought under CPR 39.3 to set aside and reopen that judgment because he had been absent from the hearing and had obtained further photographic metadata. He also sought permission to commence contempt proceedings against the planning authority and several officers, alleging that photographs and witness evidence had been falsified.

1. The CPR 39.3 application was dismissed. The court assumed, without deciding, that the claimant had acted promptly and had a good reason for not attending. He nevertheless failed to show a reasonable prospect of success if the earlier judicial review were reopened.
2. The claimant’s guilty pleas were unequivocal. A plea cannot be conditional upon a prosecutor later providing information, nor can it be replaced by another plea if the information is unavailable or unsatisfactory. The alleged photographic manipulation did not causally affect the offences to which the pleas related.
3. The court applied the abuse-of-process principles in Warren v Attorney-General for Jersey [2011] UKPC 10. Even serious prosecutorial misconduct does not automatically require a stay. The court must assess the circumstances, including the gravity of the misconduct, prejudice to the accused and whether the conduct caused unfairness or undermined the integrity of the criminal justice system.
4. R v Bolton Justices, ex p Scally [1991] 1 QB 537 was distinguishable. Unlike that case, the prosecution evidence here was not confined to allegedly tainted material. There was substantial other evidence, and the claimant had opportunities to challenge it before the magistrates.
5. The application for permission to commence committal proceedings was also dismissed and designated totally without merit. A private applicant alleging that witnesses gave false evidence must present a strong, properly evidenced case, and the court must be satisfied that the public interest requires committal proceedings. Assertions about technical photographic evidence, without expert or independent supporting evidence, were insufficient.

• Divisional Court: The earlier judicial review judgment and order of 30 April 2013 were reported as [2013] EWHC 1399 (Admin). The court extended time for an appeal against sentence but rejected challenges relating to the convictions and abuse of process.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The application to set aside and reopen the earlier judgment was dismissed. Permission to commence committal proceedings was dismissed and designated totally without merit.