SIMON SMART (R on the application of) v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE

Judicial review proceedings should, if at all possible, be administered and determined in the Administrative Court region with which they have their closest connection. The assessment is fact-sensitive and must reflect the relevant circumstances, including the claimant’s place of residence or detention, the subject matter of the claim, the location of any proposed oral hearing, and practical considerations such as travel, cost, court resources and the parties’ positions. A video-link hearing is a neutral factor where it does not materially connect the claim to another region. The location of legal representatives, public funding and the defendant’s offices will not ordinarily outweigh the claim’s closest regional connection.

The claimant brought judicial review proceedings in London challenging the Secretary of State’s decision to retain him as a Category A prisoner. He was detained at HMP Full Sutton in York, where a local advisory panel had previously considered the matter and where any oral hearing would have taken place.

A minded to transfer order proposed transferring the claim to Leeds. The claimant objected, relying on the absence of a fixed location, the likely use of video link, the London location of the defendant and legal representatives, travel costs, and an earlier similar claim determined in London. The issue was the appropriate Administrative Court venue.

1. The claim was transferred to Leeds. The court held that the claim had a specific connection with the North-East region, for which Leeds was the regional Administrative Court, and that it could promptly and properly be administered and determined there.
2. The governing principle was that a claim should, if at all possible, be administered and determined in the region with which it had its closest connection. The assessment required consideration of the relevant circumstances and criteria rather than reliance on the outcome of another case without a reasoned venue determination.
3. The claimant’s detention at HMP Full Sutton was a relevant connection, notwithstanding that the location resulted from imprisonment and could change. The impugned decision concerned his continued detention as a Category A prisoner in that region. The proposed oral hearing, if required as a matter of public law, would also have taken place at HMP Full Sutton.
4. The likely use of video link for any substantive hearing was neutral. The locations of the claimant’s solicitors, counsel’s chambers, the defendant and the Category A Team, together with travel and publicly funded costs, were considered but did not establish a closer connection with London or outweigh the regional connection to Leeds.
5. The defendant raised no objection to the transfer. The court also considered the wider volume of claims, the capacity and resources of the Administrative Courts, and their workloads. Those considerations supported determining the claim in the region of its closest connection.