Annmarie Smalling-Small v Home Office West Midlands

A limited civil restraint order may be made where the procedural requirements are met and repeated applications certified as totally without merit consume judicial and public resources. An application to set aside such an order fails where it seeks to re-litigate concluded proceedings or relies on a procedurally misconceived claim. A free-standing claim for damages for an allegedly unlawful judicial act must be brought in the High Court and within one year under section 9 of the Human Rights Act 1998; it does not provide a route to re-open an earlier refusal of permission to appeal.

The applicant sought under CPR 3.3(5) to set aside a limited civil restraint order made in the Court of Appeal on 29 July 2025. The order followed two applications to re-open an earlier refusal of permission to appeal against an order of Cranston J dated 29 July 2016.

That order had refused to re-open Collins J’s refusal of permission to apply for judicial review concerning the applicant’s removal to Jamaica in 2004. The later applications relied on alleged evidence concerning permission for judicial review and on section 9 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The central issue was whether those matters justified setting aside the restraint order.

1. Application refused. The limited civil restraint order made on 29 July 2025 remained in force.
2. The proceedings concerned only the refusal to re-open the earlier refusal of permission to appeal. They could not be used to re-litigate the lawfulness of events in 2004 or to challenge alleged judicial acts by Collins J or Cranston J.
3. The proposed claim under section 9 of the Human Rights Act 1998 was misconceived as a basis for re-opening. A claim for damages for a judicial act allegedly incompatible with a Convention right had to be brought in the High Court and within one year of the relevant acts. Neither requirement was met.
4. Two applications had been certified as totally without merit. Under CPR 3.3(4), CPR 3.11 and paragraph 2.1 of Practice Direction 3C – Civil Restraint Orders, the basis for a limited civil restraint order was established. The order was justified because repeated unmeritorious applications diverted scarce judicial and public resources from other litigants.
5. The applicant’s strongly held grievances did not alter the procedural position. The relevant proceedings were concluded, permission to appeal had been refused, and further attempts to re-litigate the 2004 events were bound to fail.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 29 July 2025, a limited civil restraint order was made after two applications to re-open had been certified as totally without merit.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 14 August 2025, the application under CPR 3.3(5) to set aside that order was refused.