Mishra v Colchester Magistrates' Court

A magistrates’ court has no discretion to extend the statutory 21-day period for applying to state a case under section 111(2) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. CPR provisions governing appeals to the High Court do not apply to that earlier application. The statutory limit does not require reading down under article 6 of the Convention. It is proportionate because magistrates need a reasonably fresh recollection, the defendant will usually hear the decision when given, and an alternative appeal to the Crown Court remains available.

Two claimants sought judicial review after magistrates’ courts refused to consider applications to state a case made outside the 21-day period in section 111(2) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. The first claimant’s application was several months late; the second claimant’s was one day late following a computer malfunction.

The claimants argued that CPR 52.15 permitted an extension, or alternatively that section 111(2) should be read compatibly with article 6 in the light of Pomiechowski v Poland and R (on the application of) Adesina. The central issue was whether the statutory time limit could be extended.

1. The claims were refused. Section 111(2) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 imposes a strict 21-day period for applying to a magistrates’ court to state a case. There is no discretion to extend it.
2. CPR 52.15 concerns the filing of an appeal in the High Court after a case has been stated under section 28A of the Senior Courts Act 1981. It does not govern the distinct procedure for applying to the magistrates’ court under section 111(2). The approach tentatively adopted in Woolls v North Somerset Council should not be followed.
3. The court followed the reasoning in Michael v Gowland and Chief Constable of Cleveland Police v Vaughan. Those authorities correctly distinguish between an application to state a case and the later preparation or filing of the stated case.
4. Reading down section 111(2) was unnecessary under article 6. The time limit is proportionate. Magistrates’ courts are not courts of record, and accurate case-stating depends on a reasonably fresh recollection. The time limit also promotes prompt certainty about whether other remedies should be pursued.
5. The position differed materially from Pomiechowski v Poland and R (on the application of) Adesina. Here, the defendant is ordinarily present when judgment is given, the period is longer than those considered in Pomiechowski, and an appeal to the Crown Court on the merits is available with a time limit capable of extension.
6. An out-of-time application could also create procedural conflict and potentially affect the alternative Crown Court appeal under section 111(4). The court therefore declined to consider the merits of the proposed extensions or stated case.

The claimants sought judicial review of decisions by Colchester and Stratford Magistrates’ Courts refusing to consider out-of-time applications to state a case. The High Court (Administrative Court) refused both claims.