Valery Sawbridge, R (on the application of) v Leeds District Magistrates Court

Proceeding with a criminal trial in an accused’s absence is unlawful where the magistrates act on a material misunderstanding of related judicial review proceedings and thereby conclude that proceeding is in the interests of justice. A statutory appeal to the Crown Court will not ordinarily bar judicial review or relief where the complaint concerns procedural unfairness or denial of an opportunity to present a defence. A section 142 remedy under the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 may ordinarily justify withholding relief where it is the appropriate and prompt means of correcting a clear mistake. The court retains discretion to grant relief where refusing it would cause further delay, duplicate judicial work and leave an unlawful conviction uncorrected.

The claimant had been convicted and sentenced in his absence by Leeds District Magistrates Court under section 11 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980. At the time, two related judicial review claims concerning the criminal proceedings remained outstanding. The magistrates proceeded after their legal adviser wrongly treated an order refusing permission on the papers as finally disposing of one claim and failed to account for the second claim.

The claimant sought judicial review and an order quashing the conviction, sentence and financial penalties. The central issues were whether proceeding in his absence was unlawful and whether the available Crown Court appeal or section 142 remedy justified refusing relief.

1. Claim succeeded. The conviction, sentence and financial penalties were quashed.
2. Section 11 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 required the magistrates to consider whether proceeding in the adult accused’s absence was contrary to the interests of justice. The magistrates knew of the relevant order but were misled into believing that the related judicial review proceedings had concluded. One claim had only been refused permission on the papers and remained capable of renewal under CPR 54.12(3); the second claim also remained live. Proceeding with the trial therefore contradicted the continuing effect of the order.
3. The decision was vitiated by a mistaken understanding of the relevant law and facts, was procedurally improper and unfair, and was unlawful. There was no evidence of bad faith or vindictiveness by the magistrates.
4. The existence of a Crown Court appeal did not justify refusing relief. Applying Rowlands v Hereford Magistrates Court and the wider fairness principle recognised in R (Citizens UK) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, judicial review was an appropriate remedy for alleged procedural unfairness and inability to present a defence.
5. A section 142 application was materially different from an appeal. It is a limited slip-rule remedy intended to correct a mistake by a magistrates’ court. In this unusual case it was an appropriate alternative remedy, because the magistrates had made a clear mistake and could have provided the relief sought.
6. Nevertheless, relief was granted in the court’s discretion. The conviction had been reached unfairly; further resort to section 142 would add delay and duplicate extensive judicial work; criminal proceedings should be resolved expeditiously; and the CPS suffered no material prejudice. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority was directed to remove the penalty points, and the West Yorkshire Enforcement and Collection Centre was directed to stop enforcing the financial penalties.