Suleman, R (on the application of) v Leeds District Magistrates Court

Magistrates generally should issue a summons when an information is properly laid, but that discretion is not unfettered. A summons may be refused where the information is incoherent, the application is vexatious or abusive, or it pursues an improper collateral purpose. Where the applicant lacks litigation capacity, any proper application must be made through a litigation friend. A failure to give adequate reasons does not necessarily require remittal where the court is satisfied that refusal was plainly open to the magistrate and reconsideration would serve no purpose.

The claimant sought judicial review of the refusal by Leeds District Magistrates Court to issue approximately 30 summonses against his former wife. The allegations included perjury, harassment, child abuse and cruelty. The applications arose against a background of family proceedings concerning the claimant’s daughter, in which the Family Court had rejected aspects of his case as lacking merit and abusive.

The claimant challenged the refusal to issue the summonses. The court considered the adequacy of the magistrate’s reasons, whether the information was sufficiently coherent, whether the applications pursued an improper collateral purpose, and whether the claimant had litigation capacity.

1. Claim dismissed. The District Judge gave inadequate reasons for refusing the summonses. Nevertheless, on the material before the court, it was plainly open to her to refuse them, so remittal would serve no purpose.
2. Magistrates have a discretion whether to issue a summons, but it is not unfettered. The general principle is that a summons should ordinarily be issued when an information is properly laid, unless there are compelling reasons such as abuse of process or other lack of propriety, as illustrated by R (on the application of) v Stratford Magistrates' Court [2004] EWHC 2506 (Admin).
3. The information was not sufficiently coherent to justify issuing the summonses. It was also open to the Magistrates Court to conclude that the applications were made for an improper collateral purpose, namely to undermine Family Court orders concerning contact with the claimant’s daughter. The proposed private prosecution was therefore capable of being treated as vexatious and an abuse of process.
4. The psychiatric evidence established that the claimant lacked litigation capacity to bring and pursue a private prosecution or an application for summonses. Any proper future application would have to be made on his behalf by a litigation friend, such as the Official Solicitor. The court did not encourage a further application in view of its observations.

The judgment records that permission had previously been refused on the papers by a single judge. The substantive judicial review claim was then determined by the High Court (Administrative Court), which dismissed it.