Lehram Capital Investments Ltd, R (on the application of) v Southwark Crown Court & Anor

The claimant sought judicial review of the Crown Court’s dismissal (17 August 2021) of its appeal against conviction and sentence in the magistrates’ court. The principal legal issues were whether the Crown Court had acted unfairly in (a) refusing an adjournment on very short notice after late service of the respondent’s appeal bundle, (b) refusing to admit representatives or witnesses by live video link from abroad, and (c) dismissing the appeal for the claimant’s non-appearance. The court applied the well-known adjournment principles (including Crown Prosecution Service v Picton and Balogun) and the Criminal Procedure Rules' duties on participants; considered the statutory and rule-based position on corporate representation (Criminal Justice Act 1925 s 33; Crim PR r 46.1) and on live video links (Criminal Justice Act 2003 s 51 as temporarily amended); and concluded that (i) the claimant had been at fault in failing to pursue the bundle and comply with court directions, (ii) no adequate written authority had been shown appointing the proposed representatives, and (iii) the court was not supplied with the information necessary to permit overseas live links. There was no substantive unfairness or appearance of bias. The judicial review claim was dismissed.

This is a judicial review challenge to the decision of Southwark Crown Court (HHJ Baumgartner) on 17 August 2021 to dismiss Lehram Capital’s appeal against conviction and sentence. The claimant had been convicted at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on offences under the Fraud Act 2006 (ss 1 and 2) and the Companies Act 2006 (s 1112) and fined; it appealed to the Crown Court where numerous procedural disputes arose about representation, late and voluminous papers from the claimant, and requests to use video links for overseas participants.

Nature of the claim / relief sought: judicial review of the Crown Court’s management of the appeal hearing, challenging refusal to adjourn, refusal to permit participation by video link, and the consequent dismissal for non-appearance.

Parties and procedural posture: the claimant is an English company; the interested party was the private prosecutor (Cyrith Holdings Ltd). Bennathan J refused permission on the papers (26 Jan 2022); Linden J granted permission on oral renewal (13 May 2022). This judgment is a full hearing of the application.

Issues framed by the court:

• whether refusal to adjourn was lawfully exercised given late receipt of the respondent’s appeal bundle,
• whether the Crown Court denied a fair hearing by refusing the claimant access by live video link or the opportunity to regularise representation,
• whether dismissal for non-appearance was lawful where no proper written authorisation to represent the company had been provided, and
• whether apparent or actual bias arose from the court’s conduct.

Court’s reasoning and findings: the court found that the claimant had been put on notice of the relevant timetable and of the risks in using the court as an intermediary for communications; it had failed to pursue missing papers promptly (contrary to Crim PR duties) and only raised the bundle issue at a very late stage. The bundle contained only a relatively small amount of new material. The court emphasised the need for rigorous scrutiny of adjournment applications (Picton, Balogun) and the importance of compliance with case management directions. On representation, statutory and rule provisions require clear written authority for a person to act for a corporation in criminal proceedings (Criminal Justice Act 1925 s 33; Crim PR r 46.1); the claimant had not produced adequate written authorisation and offered instead ambiguous, unsigned or contradictory electronic communications. On video links the court required essential information (identity, location, and the attitude of the foreign state) before permitting overseas live links (CJA 2003 s 51 as amended; cases such as R v Kadir and R v Pierini were applied). Given the claimant’s failures and the lack of reliable authorisation or necessary information, refusal to admit overseas participants by video link and refusal to adjourn were within the court’s discretion. The dismissal for non-appearance was authorised by the customary practice (ex parte Clare) because the company was not properly before the court. The court rejected complaints of bias. The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The judgment notes the unusual and confused factual picture about who was authorised to act for the company, and the court’s concern about the potential for abuse if persons purporting to bind a company are not properly vouched for.

The senior court dismissed the claimant’s judicial review application. The court held that the Crown Court’s case management decisions — refusing an adjournment, refusing to permit unverified overseas participation by live link, and dismissing the appeal for non-appearance when no proper written authority had been produced — were within its discretion and did not breach natural justice; the claimant had failed to comply with court directions and the Criminal Procedure Rules, and had not provided the written authorisation required to permit a representative to act for the company.

Permission to apply for judicial review was refused on the papers by Bennathan J on 26 January 2022; renewed permission was granted after an oral hearing by Linden J on 13 May 2022. This judgment is at first instance on the substantive judicial review application (no further appellate history is stated in the judgment).