Brogan v Nottingham Crown Court

Judicial review is not ordinarily an alternative route for challenging a Crown Court decision on appeal from a magistrates’ court. The normal and preferable route is an application for the Crown Court to state a case for the opinion of the High Court, particularly where the challenge concerns questions of law, evidence or evidential sufficiency. Judicial review remains available in principle, but should be used sparingly and generally only in exceptional circumstances. An application must also be filed promptly and, in any event, within the applicable period under the Civil Procedure Rules, unless time is extended for good reason.

Alistair Brogan sought permission to bring judicial review proceedings challenging the dismissal of his appeal by Nottingham Crown Court against his conviction by Mansfield Magistrates Court for failing to supply information concerning the driver of a vehicle. The Crown Court dismissed his appeal on 20 July 2018. He initially attempted to pursue an appeal to the Court of Appeal, which had no jurisdiction. After correspondence clarified in October 2019 that any challenge had to be brought in the Administrative Court, he filed the claim in January 2020.

Steyn J refused permission on the grounds that the claim was out of time, that the appropriate route was case stated, and that no arguable grounds of review had been shown. The renewed application raised the timeliness and procedural-route issues, together with challenges to the fairness of the Crown Court hearing and the sufficiency of the evidence.

1. Permission refused. The claim was plainly out of time. By October 2019 the claimant knew that no appeal had been filed in the proper court and that he needed to apply to the Administrative Court. He then waited more than three months before filing the claim. That breached the time limit in CPR 54.5(1), and there was no good reason to extend time. The confusion created by the Crown Court’s earlier correspondence did not remove the claimant’s responsibility to identify the correct route and act promptly.
2. The correct method of challenging the Crown Court’s decision was ordinarily an application for the Crown Court to state a case for the opinion of the High Court. Judicial review is not necessarily unavailable, but its use in this context must be exceptional and restrained. The court adopted the approach in B v Carlisle Crown Court [2009] EWHC 3540 (Admin), including the conclusion that case stated is normally preferable, especially where the challenge concerns legal rulings, evidence or the sufficiency of evidence.
3. The case-stated procedure would have required the Crown Court to identify the issues of law, its rulings, the facts found, the evidence relied upon and the legal principles applied. None of that material was before the court. The claimant’s assertions about what the Recorder had ruled and about the evidence therefore provided no adequate basis for judicial review.
4. The Crown Court appeal was a fresh hearing on a blank piece of paper. The prosecution had to prove its case afresh, as if the magistrates’ hearing had not occurred. Nothing before the court suggested that the Crown Court appeal had been unfairly or improperly conducted.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Steyn J refused permission on the papers. On renewal, the court again refused permission.