Usman, R (on the application of) v Reading Magistrates' Court

The existence of a right of appeal to the Crown Court against conviction of a summary offence is not an automatic bar to judicial review. Permission remains discretionary. The court should consider whether the alternative appeal provides an adequate remedy, including whether it offers a full rehearing of the relevant issues. The practical benefits already obtained through the appeal process, delay in pursuing judicial review, and evidential conflicts may also bear on appropriateness. Judicial review may properly be refused where the claimant can obtain a competent rehearing in the Crown Court and the circumstances do not justify exercising the discretionary remedy.

The claimant faced a summary allegation of driving with excess alcohol. The magistrates refused a short adjournment requested by his solicitor, who then withdrew, and the claimant was required to proceed without representation. He appealed to the Crown Court and obtained suspension of his driving disqualification.

Permission to apply for judicial review was refused on the papers because the claimant had pursued the Crown Court appeal. On renewal, the central issue was whether the concurrent appeal barred or rendered inappropriate the discretionary remedy of judicial review.

1. Renewed application dismissed. The existence of a Crown Court appeal is not an automatic bar to judicial review. The court accepted the authorities cited for that proposition, including R (Hereford Magistrates' Court ex p Rowlands [1998] QB 110 and R (On Application of Lightbourne) v West & Central Hertfordshire Magistrates' Court [2013] EWHC 119 Admin.
2. Judicial review is nevertheless discretionary. The court had to consider whether it was an appropriate remedy in the circumstances, rather than whether the claimant had an arguable complaint about the magistrates' refusal to adjourn.
3. The Crown Court appeal gave the claimant a rehearing before a competent court on the two identified issues: whether the car park was a public place and whether duress was available on the facts. Refusing judicial review would therefore leave him with an effective remedy, although it would mean that he did not obtain both a magistrates' trial and a further judicial review in addition to the appeal.
4. The suspension of disqualification obtained through the appeal was a significant practical benefit and was relevant to the discretionary assessment. The delay in issuing judicial review proceedings, despite knowing that judicial review was being considered, also weighed against granting relief. The conflict of evidence between the claimant and his solicitor about the circumstances of the adjournment request further supported resolving the matter through the Crown Court rather than judicial review.
5. For substantially the same reasons as those given by Mr Justice Collins, the renewed application for permission failed and was dismissed.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to apply for judicial review was refused on the papers by Mr Justice Collins on 19 June 2017. The claimant renewed the application orally, and the renewed application was dismissed.