ENITANWYA OREKOYA (R on the application of) v LEEDS MAGISTRATES COURT

In a renewed application for judicial review, permission should be refused where the proposed grounds have no realistic prospect of success. A court may proceed in a claimant’s absence where the claimant has received adequate notice, accessible arrangements have been provided, and the interests of justice and overriding objective favour proceeding. Health evidence must be assessed carefully, but an adjournment may be refused where the evidence does not address the proposed hearing mode and the claimant has failed to provide information specifically directed by earlier orders. Decisions whether to proceed in a party’s absence or adjourn are ordinarily case-management decisions for the trial court, subject to public law and fair-trial standards.

The claimant sought judicial review of decisions made by Leeds Magistrates Court on 9 July 2021. The magistrates had proceeded in her absence, found that she had breached the terms of a community sentence, and issued a warrant of arrest without bail.

Permission had previously been refused on the papers by Eady J. The claimant renewed the application orally but did not attend. She sought an adjournment based principally on medical evidence stating that she was unfit to attend court proceedings, together with a further request connected with other judicial review proceedings.

The central issues were whether the hearing should be adjourned and whether either proposed ground disclosed an arguable claim with a realistic prospect of success.

1. The application to adjourn was refused. The court treated the health-related evidence with care, but the hearing was a short telephone hearing, the claimant had been given repeated notice and accessible means of participation, and the medical evidence did not address her ability to participate by telephone. The claimant had also failed to comply with directions requiring her to seek specific medical information and underlying medical notes. The proposed adjournment based on other proceedings was unsupported and raised too late.

2. The threshold for permission was whether the claim was arguable with a realistic prospect of success. Neither proposed ground met that threshold.

3. The first ground relied on alleged new evidence said to undermine the underlying education offence conviction. The claimant had not placed before the court material showing that conviction to be unsound. Its soundness was a matter for the Crown Court appeal, whereas the magistrates’ hearing concerned breach of the community sentence.

4. The second ground alleged that proceeding in the claimant’s absence breached fair-trial rights under Article 6 of the ECHR. The contemporaneous documents showed that, immediately before the hearing, the claimant was seeking an urgent stay based on alleged exonerating evidence and had not communicated an incapacitating illness to the magistrates. Her legal representative was present but could not explain her absence or advance a health-based adjournment application. The magistrates’ decisions to proceed, determine breach and refuse an adjournment were case-management decisions. There was no viable public-law or human-rights basis for impugning them.

5. The renewed application for permission was refused. The stay of execution on the arrest warrant was discharged.

Permission for judicial review was first refused on the papers by Eady J on 1 October 2021. The claimant renewed the application before the Administrative Court, which refused permission and discharged the stay on the arrest warrant.