Oyebola, R (On the Application Of) v Wood Green Crown Court

Judicial review controls the lawfulness of decisions by public authorities, including courts and tribunals. It is not a substitute for an appeal and does not permit the Administrative Court to resolve factual disputes or substitute its own view of the facts. Allegations that a lower court reached the wrong factual conclusion must ordinarily be pursued through the appropriate appellate jurisdiction. Where the claimant’s grounds disclose no properly arguable public-law error, permission for judicial review must be refused.

This was a renewed application for permission to bring judicial review proceedings against an order made by Wood Green Crown Court on 8 January 2016 in confiscation proceedings. The order reduced the realisable assets figure after excluding the value of a Rolex watch and unavailable funds. Permission had previously been refused on the papers by Cranston J on 21 June 2016. The claimant sought to reargue factual issues concerning assets, valuations, alleged police misconduct and the conduct of the prosecution, and relied on Article 6 of the ECHR and proportionality. The central issue was whether those matters disclosed a properly arguable basis for judicial review.

1. The renewed application for permission was refused. There was no properly arguable basis on which the Administrative Court could interfere with the Crown Court’s order.

2. Judicial review exists to control the lawfulness of decisions by public authorities, including courts and tribunals. It does not entail an appeal against an order of a lower court.

3. The Administrative Court cannot use judicial review to determine disputed facts or substitute its own view of the facts, even if an allegation might have merit. A challenge to the factual correctness of a confiscation order must be pursued, where available, in the relevant appellate court.

4. The claimant’s complaints concerning the Rolex watch, 3 Ashbourne Avenue, correction of errors in the order, property valuations, alleged misleading of courts and alleged breach of Article 6 did not disclose a public-law error. The court agreed with Cranston J that the Rolex issue had effectively been addressed by the reduction in the realisable assets figure and that the remaining property and correction issues did not provide grounds for judicial review.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Cranston J refused permission on the papers on 21 June 2016.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Singh J refused the renewed application for permission.