Pegram, R (On the Application Of) v Bristol Crown Court & Ors

A court asked to state a case may refuse only where the proposed appeal is frivolous, meaning futile, misconceived, hopeless or academic. It must consider the proposed questions of law, rather than merely reconsider whether its decision was correct. A bare or unexplained refusal is inadequate, and later reasons will not cure the defect if they address the merits without applying the correct test. Where arguable questions are identified, the Administrative Court may quash the refusal and direct that a case be stated, while excluding questions that disclose no arguable point of law.

The claimant had been convicted in the magistrates’ court of assaulting a police constable in the execution of his duty, contrary to Police Act 1996, section 89(1). His appeal to the Crown Court was dismissed. The Crown Court initially refused, without reasons, to state a case for an appeal on four proposed questions of law. It later supplied reasons, but those reasons reviewed the basis of the conviction and did not consider whether the proposed questions were frivolous.

The claimant sought judicial review. The central issues were whether the refusal had been lawfully considered and, if not, what further relief should be granted.

1. The claim succeeded. The refusal by the Crown Court to state a case was quashed.
2. The applicable test was that a court may decline to state a case only where the proposed appeal is frivolous in the relevant procedural sense: futile, misconceived, hopeless or academic. The court cannot reach that conclusion merely because it considers its own decision correct or immune from challenge. Reasons should ordinarily indicate, however briefly, why the application meets that description.
3. The Crown Court’s initial bare refusal was plainly inadequate. Its later reasons did not cure the defect. They reviewed the basis on which the conviction and appeal had been decided, but did not examine the proposed questions of law or ask whether raising them was frivolous under the applicable test.
4. The fourth proposed question, concerning recklessness, disclosed no arguable point of law and did not warrant further relief. The first three questions were not frivolous, although they required tightening and clarification.
5. A mandatory order was therefore made directing the Crown Court to state a case on three revised questions: whether the officer had been acting in the execution of his duty when taking hold of the claimant; whether the evidence raised a prima facie case of self-defence and, if so, whether dismissal of the appeal was sound in law; and whether the Crown Court had misdirected itself on character.

• Magistrates’ Court: The claimant was convicted on 22 February 2018 of assaulting a police constable in the execution of his duty.
• Bristol Crown Court: The claimant’s appeal was dismissed on 25 May 2018. The Crown Court refused to state a case and later provided reasons.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The refusal was quashed. The Crown Court was directed to state a case on three revised questions.