Bryn Duval Richards v The Crown Prosecution Service & Anor

A claim under the Human Rights Act 1998 cannot be used to challenge a criminal conviction or obtain its reversal where the complaint concerns a judicial act. Section 9 requires the claimant to use an appeal, judicial review, or a prescribed forum. Section 9(1)(c) does not permit a non-damages remedy and applies only to the limited context identified in the authorities. A claim against a prosecuting authority may also be an abuse of process where alleged trial unfairness should have been raised in the criminal proceedings and pursued by appeal. Permission to appeal was refused.

The appellant brought a damages claim under the Human Rights Act 1998 against the Crown Prosecution Service and Great Yarmouth Magistrates Court. He alleged that body-worn camera footage had been unlawfully withheld, resulting in an unfair criminal trial contrary to Article 6. He sought damages and an order overturning his conviction.

Master Eastman struck out the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a), certified it as totally without merit and ordered costs. The appellant renewed his application for permission to appeal. The issues were whether section 9 applied to the alleged judicial acts and whether the proceedings were an abuse of process because the complaints should have been pursued through the criminal appeal route.

1. Permission refused. The proposed appeal had no real prospect of success and there was no other compelling reason for it to be heard under CPR 52.6.
2. The acts complained of against the Magistrates Court were judicial acts within section 9(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998. The appellant was confined to an appeal, judicial review, or a forum prescribed by rules. Section 9 was a complete answer to that part of the claim, which was properly struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a).
3. Section 9(1)(c) did not assist the appellant. The authorities indicated that it concerns damages claims for unlawful detention contrary to Article 5. It did not permit the appellant’s claim for an order overturning his conviction, which had to be pursued by appeal or, where available, judicial review.
4. The claim against the CPS was, in substance, concerned with the judicial acts of convicting the appellant and imposing financial penalties. In any event, it was properly struck out as an abuse of process under CPR 3.4(2)(b), since alleged prosecution failings should have been raised in the criminal proceedings and pursued by appeal.
5. The second ground disclosed no arguable error because the Master had not decided the limitation issue. Permission to appeal was therefore refused.

• High Court (King’s Bench Division): Mrs Justice Hill refused the renewed application for permission to appeal against Master Eastman’s order dated 23 June 2023, which struck out the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a).
• Permission decision: Sir Stephen Stewart refused permission on the papers on 29 July 2024.