Summary
A High Court decision is made in a “criminal cause or matter” for appeal purposes where the underlying proceedings have a clear and direct connection with bringing or determining a specific criminal charge. The direct outcome must expose a person to trial and possible criminal punishment.
Proceedings concerning a non-judicial public authority’s implementation of a sentence already imposed fall outside that category. This includes calculating a prisoner’s tariff or release date. Such proceedings are civil public law proceedings, from which the ordinary appeal lies to the Court of Appeal.
Factual background
The Department of Justice referred the case of a life prisoner to the Parole Commissioners after counting a period spent on licence towards his tariff. The sister of one of his victims successfully challenged that calculation in the Divisional Court: [2019] NIQB 10.
The Department and the prisoner appealed directly to the Supreme Court under section 41 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. The Attorney General for Northern Ireland intervened to dispute the court’s jurisdiction. The preliminary issue was whether judicial review of an administrative decision implementing an existing sentence was a decision “in a criminal cause or matter”.
Held
The Supreme Court unanimously held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeals. Lord Sales delivered the judgment, with which Lady Hale, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath and Lord Lloyd-Jones agreed. The proceedings were not a “criminal cause or matter” under section 41 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. The proper appeal lay to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal.
The leading authority, Amand v Home Secretary [1943] AC 147, requires attention to the proceedings underlying the High Court claim. The relevant category covers proceedings whose direct outcome may be the applicant’s trial and possible punishment for an alleged offence. It therefore extends beyond formally criminal proceedings in the High Court, but remains focused upon the process of bringing and determining criminal charges.
The category is an exception to the general right of appeal from the High Court to the Court of Appeal. An expansive construction would restrict access to appellate correction because a direct appeal to the Supreme Court requires certification of a point of law of general public importance and permission to appeal. The category should therefore be reasonably tightly drawn while still capturing proceedings directly connected with a specific prosecution, criminal trial or consequential criminal order.
The challenged decision concerned the Department’s understanding and administrative implementation of a sentence imposed in completed criminal proceedings. The prisoner faced no outstanding charge, trial or possible sentence as a direct outcome of the Department’s process. Judicial review of the calculation of his tariff expiry date was accordingly civil public law litigation.
The Court of Appeal’s contrary approach in R (McAtee) v Secretary of State for Justice [2018] EWCA Civ 2851 was rejected. The imposition of sentence is part of the criminal process, but later decisions by non-judicial bodies about its effect are not. The majority approach in In re JR27 [2010] NIQB 12, which treated a remote possibility of future prosecution as sufficient jeopardy, was also rejected.
The court did not determine the substantive dispute concerning calculation of the tariff. The parties could challenge the Divisional Court’s decision in the Court of Appeal, whose consideration of the special Northern Ireland prisoner regime would assist if the merits later reached the Supreme Court.
The court’s approach to earlier authorities
Available to signed-in members.
Appellate history
- United Kingdom Supreme Court: Held that it had no jurisdiction under section 41 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. The proper appeal lay to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal: [2020] UKSC 6 .
- Divisional Court of the High Court in Northern Ireland: Allowed the judicial review challenge to the Department’s calculation and certified a point of law of general public importance: [2019] NIQB 10.
Appeal route
- Appealed from[2019] NIQB 10This appealappeals dismissed for want of jurisdiction (unanimous)
- This judgment [2020] UKSC 6 United Kingdom Supreme Court
Key cases cited
24 authorities cited.
- R v Secretary of State for Justice [2018] UKSC 59
- Belhaj and another v Director of Public Prosecutions and another [2018] UKSC 33
- R (on the application of Purdy) (Appellant) v Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) [2009] UKHL 45
- R (on the application of Corner House Research and others) (Respondents) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office (Appellant) (Criminal Appeal from Her majesty's High Court of Justice) [2008] UKHL 60
- Regina v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (Respondent) ex parte LS (by his mother and litigation friend JB) (FC) (Appellant)Regina v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (Respondent) ex parte Marper (FC)(Appellant) Consolidated Appeals [2004] UKHL 39
- Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p Anderson (FC) [2002] UKHL 46
- The Queen on the Application of Mrs Dianne Pretty v. Director of Public Prosecutions and Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] UKHL 61
- R v Governor of Brockhill Prison, Ex p Evans (No 2) [2001] 2 AC 19
- Barras v Aberdeen Steam Trawling and Fishing Co Ltd [1933] AC 402
- Thakrar v Crown Prosecution Service [2019] EWCA Civ 874
- McAtee, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Justice [2018] EWCA Civ 2851
- Minter v Hampshire Constabulary & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 697
- Guardian News and Media Ltd, R (on the application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1188
- In re JR27 [2010] NIQB 12
- In re Montgomery’s Application [2008] NIQB 130
- Gilbert v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWHC 1991 (Admin)
- Ex p Alice Woodhall (1888) 20 QBD 832
- R v Steel (1876) 2 QBD 37
- R v Fletcher (1876) 2 QBD 43
- R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Dannenberg (Dannenberg, Ex parte) [1984] QB 766
- R v Board of Visitors of Hull Prison, Ex parte St Germain (R v Board of Visitors of Wandsworth Prison, Ex parte Rosa, St Germain, Ex parte) [1979] QB 425
- Amand v Secretary of State for Home Affairs (R v Secretary of State for Home Affairs, Ex p Amand) [1943] AC 147
- Clifford and O’Sullivan, In re [1921] 2 AC 570
- Provincial Cinematograph Theatres Ltd v Newcastle-upon-Tyne Profiteering Committee
Sign in to see how the court treated each authority. A free account is enough.
Cases citing this case
6 later cases · 6 positive
Most senior citing decisions:
- Diogo Santos Coelho, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 1219 applied
- Paul Cleeland (R on the application of) v Criminal Cases Review Commission [2022] EWCA Civ 5 applied
- Mirchandani v The Lord Chancellor [2020] EWCA Civ 1260 applied
- IPE Marble Arch Limited v Anthony Moran [2024] EWHC 2913 (KB)
- MCML Limited (Formerly ED&F Man Capital Markets Limited) & Anor, R (on the application of) v Southwark Crown Court [2024] EWHC 1470 (Admin)
- Leeds City Council v Persons Unknown [2023] EWHC 1992 (Admin)
Sign in for the full treatment table. A free account is enough.