France, R (on the application of) v St Helens Magistrates' Court

A renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review should be refused where the claim is substantially out of time and the papers disclose no arguable error of law. An adjournment may properly be refused where the applicant has had ample time to prepare, the evidence of ill health is inadequate, and the underlying claim is hopeless. Judicial review cannot ordinarily be used to reopen a criminal conviction or sentence where the available appellate process was not pursued promptly.

The claimant sought to renew an application for permission to apply for judicial review after Ouseley J refused permission on the papers. The proposed claim challenged her conviction by St Helens Magistrates' Court on 17 September 2014 for failing to comply with an improvement notice under section 30 of the Housing Act 2004, and the Liverpool Crown Court's refusal on 27 February 2015 to permit an out-of-time appeal against conviction.

Before the renewed permission hearing, the claimant applied for an adjournment to obtain counsel and because of ill health and domestic difficulties. The issues were whether the hearing should be adjourned and whether the proposed judicial review claim was arguable and brought within time.

1. The application for an adjournment was refused. The claimant had had a long period in which to decide how to respond to the paper refusal of permission. The medical certificate was unparticularised and merely stated that she was unfit for work. The circumstances relied on did not explain why she could not attend or prepare for the hearing, with or without representation.
2. The renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review was refused. The claim form, issued on 1 April 2016, was substantially out of time in relation to both the magistrates' decision of 17 September 2014 and the Crown Court decision of 27 February 2015. No adequate justification for the delay was shown.
3. Even if the claim had been brought in time, the papers disclosed no arguable basis for judicial review. There was nothing capable of supporting intervention in the magistrates' conviction or in the Crown Court's refusal to extend time for an appeal. The claimant's assertions that she had been coerced into pleading guilty and that the District Judge had been partial were unsupported by evidence sufficiently strong to establish an arguable case.
4. The court agreed entirely with the reasons given by Ouseley J. The renewed permission application and the adjournment application were both refused.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): Ouseley J refused permission to apply for judicial review on the papers. Mr Justice King refused the claimant's renewed permission application and her application for an adjournment.