OMAR KHYAM (R on the application of) v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE

In judicial review proceedings, venue should ordinarily be administered and determined in the Administrative Court region with which the claim has its closest or specific connection, if that is possible. The assessment is fact-sensitive and requires consideration of all relevant circumstances. The claimant’s residence at the material time, the subject matter of the claim, the location of lawyers, travel costs and time, video-link attendance, and regional court capacity may all be relevant. The choice of London lawyers does not, by itself, create a connection with London or confer an ability to choose the venue. Public interest in regionalisation may outweigh the convenience and expense of legal representatives.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Category A Team’s decision to maintain him as a Category A prisoner. The claim was issued in London, although he was detained at HMP Full Sutton in York. A minded to transfer order invited representations on whether the claim should be transferred to Leeds, the regional Administrative Court for the North-East. The claimant relied principally on the location of the parties, solicitors and counsel, travel costs, public funding, and the possibility of video-link attendance. The central issue was whether the claim had a specific or closest connection with the Leeds region and whether it was possible and appropriate for the claim to be administered and determined there.

The court ordered that the claim be transferred to Leeds.

1. The applicable principle, previously considered in Smart [2022] EWHC 509 (Admin), was that a judicial review claim should, if at all possible, be administered and determined in the Administrative Court region with which it had its closest connection.

2. Venue had to be determined by reference to all the relevant circumstances and applicable criteria. The claimant was residing, for the material purposes, in the North-East because he was detained at HMP Full Sutton when the claim was filed and when the underlying decision was made. The fact that imprisonment imposed that residence, and that the claimant’s location might change, did not remove its relevance.

3. The location of the claimant’s solicitors, counsel’s chambers, the defendant and the Category A Team was relevant, as were travel time, cost and public funding. Those factors did not outweigh the claim’s regional connection. The claimant’s possible attendance by video link was neutral.

4. The choice of London lawyers could not, of itself, drive the venue decision. Treating lawyer choice as determinative would undermine the purposes of regionalisation, including the development and use of regional Administrative Court expertise and the proper allocation of court capacity, resources and workload.

5. The claim could be promptly and properly administered and determined in Leeds. Its anticipated length, and the inconvenience and expense of travel from London, were insufficient to displace Leeds as the claim’s natural venue.