Neil Cox v DPP

Administrative Court proceedings should ordinarily be administered and determined in the region with which the claim has the closest connection. The assessment focuses principally on the subject matter of the claim, the appellant’s residence, and the respondent’s relevant location. Other relevant circumstances may include venue preferences, travel, remote-hearing facilities, public interest, listing times, court resources, related proceedings and the location of legal representatives.

The choice to instruct London lawyers does not ordinarily justify a London venue where the claim is otherwise connected with another region. A historic case concerning similar subject matter does not make related proceedings current or require the same venue.

The appellant appealed by way of case stated against the Crown Court at Chester’s dismissal of his appeal against conviction. He filed the appeal in London, although he lived in Macclesfield and the underlying events and decisions arose in the Northern region.

A minded-to-transfer order proposed transfer to the Administrative Court in Manchester. The appellant opposed transfer, relying on his London counsel and employment, potential listing speed, prior experience in Gough v DPP, and concerns about unconscious bias. The respondent made no submissions. The issue was which region had the closest connection with the claim and whether other relevant circumstances justified retaining London.

1. Appeal venue. The claim was ordered to be transferred to the Northern region for administration and determination at the Manchester Civil Justice Centre.
2. Closest connection. Under CPR PD 54C, the court had to identify the region with which the claim was most closely connected, having regard principally to the subject matter, the appellant’s residence, and the respondent’s location. The appellant lived in Macclesfield. The relevant conduct occurred there, and the appeal concerned decisions of Crewe Magistrates Court and Chester Crown Court. The respondent’s Appeals and Review Unit was in York, which was geographically closer to Manchester than London.
3. Other circumstances. The additional factors did not displace the general expectation of determination in the region of closest connection. The appellant’s choice of London lawyers and employment in London carried limited weight. Parties have decision-making autonomy as to which lawyers they instruct, and instructing London counsel should not ordinarily drive a London venue becoming self-fulfilling, as explained in R (Airedale Chemical Company Ltd) v HMRC and R (Thakor / Palmer) v SSHD. Both proposed court centres had video-link facilities, both could list the appeal within the relevant period, and transfer would assist the resources and workload of the Royal Courts of Justice.
4. Prior authority and bias. Gough v DPP, heard in London nearly twelve years earlier, did not constitute a current related claim for the purposes of the relevant factor. The existence of a potentially relevant authority did not require a hearing in the same venue. There was also no proper basis for assuming greater unconscious bias against naturists in Manchester than in London.

• Crown Court at Chester: On 8 November 2024, dismissed the appellant’s appeal against conviction.
• High Court (Administrative Court): On appeal by way of case stated, ordered transfer to the Northern region for administration and determination at Manchester.