Hassani, R (on the application of) v West London Magistrates' Court

Criminal proceedings must be conducted in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Rules. Courts have a duty to use active and firm case management to identify the real issues, prevent avoidable delay and exclude hopeless or late points. Participants must notify the court and other parties promptly of significant procedural failures. A failure to do so may justify refusing a later adjournment or direction. In drink-drive cases, extensive technical challenges to approved breath-testing equipment ordinarily waste time unless supported by specific evidence or a clearly identified challenge. Advocates must ensure that clients understand the evidential and legal consequences of giving false evidence. These principles apply whether the court consists of professional district judges or lay magistrates.

The claimant had been convicted in the Westminster Magistrates' Court of driving with excess alcohol. He sought judicial review of that conviction out of time, without having appealed to the Crown Court or given evidence at trial. Permission was refused on paper by Edis J, and the claimant renewed the application.

At the renewed hearing, the claimant sought to withdraw. The Divisional Court permitted withdrawal but gave guidance because the case illustrated extensive technical points, procedural complaints and delay in a drink-drive trial. The central issue was the proper use of active case management under the Criminal Procedure Rules.

1. Disposition. The renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review was withdrawn. Permission to appeal was refused. The court nevertheless issued guidance because the application was wholly without merit and the case raised important recurring case-management issues.
2. Each participant, including lawyers and parties, must prepare and conduct a criminal case in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Rules. The overriding objective requires cases to be dealt with fairly, efficiently and expeditiously. Courts must use firm case management to prevent time-wasting, repeated hopeless points and attempts to prolong hearings.
3. Under rule 1.2, participants must notify the court and other parties at once of significant procedural failures which might hinder the overriding objective. If a document or service is said to be missing, the point should be raised early. A court may properly refuse a late request for production of the document or an adjournment.
4. Rules 3.2, 3.3 and 3.11 require active identification of the real issues, assistance by the parties, early communication about disputed matters and material required, and judicial control over the scope and duration of evidence.
5. In the absence of specific evidence indicating a problem with the approved Intoximeter EC/IR machine, extensive exploration of technicalities will normally be unproductive. A court may ask whether the defendant intends to give evidence that he had not been drinking, or had consumed too little to explain the reading, and may then require the evidential basis of any challenge to the equipment to be identified.
6. Lawyers should remind defendants that evidence is given on oath or affirmation and that knowingly false evidence may constitute perjury.
7. The court endorsed the usefulness of the decision in R v Cipriani for similar cases and directed that this judgment be cited when adjournment or case-management issues arise in motoring proceedings.

1. Westminster Magistrates' Court: the claimant was convicted on 30 June 2016 of driving with excess alcohol.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): Edis J refused permission to apply for judicial review on paper on 12 November 2016. The renewed application was then withdrawn, and permission to appeal was refused.