Oyebola, R.(On the Application of) v Criminal Cases Review Commission

The court’s review of a decision by the Criminal Cases Review Commission is confined to ordinary public-law errors. The court must not retake the Commission’s judgment or permit a claimant to rerun issues already litigated before the criminal courts. The relevant grounds include illegality, irrationality, perversity, failure to take account of a material consideration, or reliance on an immaterial consideration. Complaints about terminology, factual analysis or arithmetic do not justify intervention unless they disclose an arguable error of law capable of affecting the prospect of a successful criminal appeal.

This was a renewed application for permission to bring judicial review proceedings against the Criminal Cases Review Commission’s provisional and final decisions concerning confiscation proceedings arising from mortgage-fraud convictions. The claimant had made previous applications to the Commission and numerous judicial review applications relating to the convictions and confiscation order. He challenged the Commission’s treatment of three issues concerning property values, mortgage payments and the original confiscation order. Permission had previously been refused by Sir Wyn Williams. The central question was whether the Commission had misunderstood the confiscation regime or otherwise committed an arguable public-law error.

1. Application refused. The claim was totally without merit.
2. The CCRC’s statutory function is to refer a case to the Court of Appeal only where it considers that there is a real possibility that the relevant order would be reduced because of new information or a new legal argument not previously advanced. The judicial review court applies a narrow public-law test and does not exercise the CCRC’s judgment afresh. The applicable grounds include irrationality, perversity, failure to consider a material matter and consideration of an immaterial matter, as stated in Mills & Poole v CCRC [2001] EWHC (Admin) 1153, R (on the application of Steele) v CCRC [2015] EWHC 3724 (Admin) and R v CCRC ex parte Pearson [1999] 3 All ER 498.
3. The claimant’s complaints sought to re-litigate findings already considered by the Crown Court, the Court of Appeal and the CCRC. Disagreement with the Court of Appeal’s ruling or the CCRC’s analysis of factual matters did not establish illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety.
4. Complaints about the use of terms such as “refund” rather than “reduction”, describing a judgment as an order, and alleged arithmetic discrepancies did not disclose an arguable error of law. The issues had been fully litigated, and no realistic prospect existed that a further referral would lead to a reduction of the confiscation order.

The judgment records that permission had previously been refused by Sir Wyn Williams on 19 August 2019. This court refused the renewed application.