Robert Edward O'Brien, R (on the application of) v Metropolitan Police Commissioner

Administrative Court venue is determined by the region with which a judicial review claim has its closest connection. The London venue is not a national or senior court for nationally significant claims, and regional venues are not limited to local issues. Relevant connections may include the location of the public authority, the place where the events occurred, the substance of the alleged legal duty, and the likely mode of any hearing. In the particular circumstances, a claim concerning the Metropolitan Police Commissioner’s alleged duties in recording crimes reported to the force was most closely connected with the South-East, despite the claimant’s detention outside that region.

The claimant, acting in person and detained at HMP Garth in Leyland, brought judicial review proceedings against the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. A minded to transfer order proposed transferring the case to Manchester. The claimant opposed transfer, arguing that the defendant was the head of the senior police force in the country, that the Royal Courts of Justice was the senior court, and that the claim had national significance. He also argued that the claim was most closely connected with the South-East because it concerned the Metropolitan Police Commissioner’s alleged legal duties regarding crimes reported to the Metropolitan Police in July and August 2022.

The court determined the appropriate regional venue on the papers.

1. Venue principle. The relevant question under the venue arrangements was whether the claim had its closest connection with the South-East region. The London Administrative Court is the regional venue for that region. It is not a national court for nationally significant cases, nor are non-London regional venues provincial courts limited to local issues.
2. Application. The claimant’s venue argument had force. The claim concerned an alleged duty of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, based in London, in relation to the recording of crimes reportedly made to the Metropolitan Police. The claimant did not anticipate attending any hearing and, if required, would appear by video link. The defendant had filed no representations and was treated as not opposing transfer to Manchester.
3. Disposition. In the particular circumstances, the papers could and should be dealt with in London as the regional venue for the South-East. The proposed transfer to Manchester was therefore not proceeded with. If the claim disclosed anything requiring further consideration, appropriate directions could be given.