Romell v The Secretary of State for Justice

Habeas corpus is a remedy for unlawful detention, not an alternative appeal against conviction or sentence. Where a person has received a fair trial and has been convicted and sentenced by a competent, lawfully convened court, any challenge must ordinarily be pursued through the criminal appellate process. If an appeal is not brought or fails, the matter is at an end for habeas corpus purposes unless exceptional circumstances exist, such as genuinely new exculpatory evidence unavailable at trial. Allegations that the trial court lacked authority, or that the State had lost the right to enforce the law, do not establish unlawful detention.

Lord Shane Romell was convicted at the Central Criminal Court of robbery, firearm and ammunition offences and sentenced to two concurrent terms of life imprisonment, subject to a minimum term of eight and a half years. His initial habeas corpus application was refused on the papers by Murray J. A renewed application was refused by Supperstone J in [2019] EWHC 322 (Admin) as totally without merit. The appeal concerned whether habeas corpus could be used to challenge the lawfulness of his conviction and detention on grounds that the Central Criminal Court was not a proper court and that State wrongdoing affected the validity of his imprisonment.

1. Disposition. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It certified the appeal as totally without merit and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs, summarily assessed at £500, subject to restrictions on enforcement while he remained detained.

2. Lawfulness of detention. The applicant had received a fair trial before a jury. He had been convicted and sentenced in accordance with the law by a lawfully convened court. The judges sitting at the Central Criminal Court were Crown Court and High Court judges authorised and empowered by law to conduct the trial.

3. Proper function of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus was not a means of appealing against a conviction or sentence. A person convicted by a competent court could not use the writ to reopen the conviction. The ordinary criminal appellate procedures provided the appropriate route for challenging conviction or sentence.

4. Exceptional circumstances. Where permission to appeal or an appeal was not pursued, or was unsuccessful, the matter was ordinarily final for these purposes. An exceptional basis might permit a conviction to be challenged, such as the emergence of exculpatory evidence unavailable at trial, but no such circumstance existed here. The court relied on the principle stated in R e Corke [1954] 1 WLR 899.

5. The applicant’s arguments concerning the Central Criminal Court’s alleged corporate or contractual character, sovereignty, State lawbreaking and the judiciary’s alleged breaches of law did not identify any basis for habeas corpus relief.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was dismissed on 11 September 2019. It was certified as totally without merit, with costs ordered against the applicant.
• Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: Supperstone J refused the renewed habeas corpus application in [2019] EWHC 322 (Admin) and certified it as totally without merit. The initial application had been refused on the papers by Murray J.