Kevin Charles Godin-Prior, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Transport & Anor

Judicial review is generally inappropriate where Parliament has provided an effective statutory appeal on the merits. A claimant must use that mechanism to challenge the substance of a decision, including alleged factual error, procedural unfairness or an excusable default. Unused further rights of appeal reinforce the inadequacy of judicial review as a route of challenge. A claim may also be refused for delay where it challenges the original decision rather than the later decision on appeal. The court may proceed in a claimant’s absence where the claimant had proper notice, was aware of the hearing and the interests of justice support proceeding.

The claimant challenged the revocation of his driving licence by the Secretary of State for Transport, acting through the DVLA, on 22 April 2021. The revocation was made under Road Traffic Act 1988, section 93, after the claimant failed to return requested medical information within the stated periods.

The claimant appealed to Stockport Magistrates’ Court under section 100. That appeal was dismissed on 5 November 2021. He did not pursue available appeals to the Crown Court or an appeal on a point of law. Permission for judicial review was refused on the papers by UTJ Plimmer, including on grounds of delay, alternative remedy and lack of arguability. The issue on renewal was whether the judicial review claim remained viable despite the statutory appeal and the claimant’s delay.

1. The renewed application was dismissed. The court proceeded in the claimant’s absence. He had received notice of the hearing, was aware of the arrangements and had not made an application for an extension of time or otherwise explained his non-attendance. Proceeding was consistent with the interests of justice, the public interest and the overriding objective.
2. The complaints concerning non-receipt or mislaying of the DVLA correspondence, the adequacy of the notice period and alleged failure to respond were matters for the statutory appeal on the merits. Under Road Traffic Act 1988, section 100, the claimant could present evidence about his position at or before the revocation decision. The magistrates had found that his failure to provide the requested documents within the relevant period justified revocation on the merits.
3. The complaints concerning the police notification and the information exchanged with the DVLA disclosed no arguable public-law error. The DVLA had provided an established process for assessing fitness to drive, had given appropriate notice and had explained that the claimant could reapply for his licence. The statutory merits appeal protected him if the revocation was wrong.
4. Judicial review was inappropriate in light of the statutory appeal and the unused further avenues of appeal. The claim was also out of time. Even if delay until the magistrates’ decision could be excused, a further three months could not be used to challenge the original revocation rather than the magistrates’ decision. No extension of time was justified.
5. The Secretary of State’s existing costs order of £1,800 stood. The Police’s application for a further costs order was refused, and there was no order as to costs for the hearing.

• Stockport Magistrates’ Court: dismissed the statutory appeal against revocation on 5 November 2021.
• High Court (Administrative Court): UTJ Plimmer refused permission for judicial review on the papers on 10 June 2022. On renewal, Mr Justice Fordham dismissed the application.