Chief Constable of Humberside Police v Kelly Morgan
| Court | King's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Judge | FORDHAM J |
| Neutral Citation | [2024] EWHC 2859 (Admin) |
| Date | 12 November 2024 |
| Year | 2024 |
| Counsel | Paul Waite,Conor Monighan,Oliver Shipley,John Paul Waite |
Neutral Citation Number: [2024] EWHC 2859 (Admin)
Case No: AC-2024-LDS-000031
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
SITTING IN LEEDS
Tuesday, 12 th
November 2024
Before:
FORDHAM J
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
CHIEF CONSTABLE OF HUMBERSIDE POLICE
Appellant
-and-
KELLY MORGAN
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
John-Paul Waite and Conor Monighan (instructed by Humberside Police) for the Appellant
Oliver Shipley (instructed by John Robinson & Co) for the Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hearing date: 3.10.24
Further submissions: 18.10.24
Draft judgment: 4.11.24
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approved Judgment
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FORDHAM J
This Judgment was handed down remotely at 10am on Tuesday 12 November 2024 by circulation to
the parties or their representatives by email and by release to the National Archives.
FORDHAM J
Approved Judgment
Humberside Chief Constable v Morgan
FORDHAM J:
Introduction
1. This case is about whether a “Closure Order” made by a magistrates’ court under s.80
of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 can be suspended by the
magistrates’ court, pending the determination by the crown court of a statutory appeal
pursuant to s.84. There are related questions about Article 6 ECHR rights and the
jurisdiction of the crown court and High Court.
2. The premises in question are a council house occupied by Kelly Morgan and her
daughters. The applicant for the Closure Order was the Humberside Chief Constable.
Ms Morgan and the Chief Constable are the parties to this appeal. The Closure Order
was made by District Judge Daley sitting at Hull Magistrates’ Court, being satisfied
that the s.80 “Statutory Necessity Criteria” (as I will call them) were met and a 3 month
Closure Order was necessary. What happened next was that Ms Morgan’s
representatives asked the Judge to suspend the Closure Order pending her s.84 appeal
to the crown court against the Closure Order. The Judge decided there was power to do
that under s.63(2) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, and that it was appropriate to
exercise that power. Based on what he was told he was concerned that – absent such a
suspension – an eviction of the family on “absolute” grounds could become
“irreversible” before the crown court appeal had been determined. That has proved to
be wrong, and Parliament had addressed it by means of a suspensive protection in the
2014 Act.
3. Closure Orders are short-term orders governed by Part 4 Chapter 3 of the 2014 Act.
They are made by magistrates (s.80) on the prompt application by a police force or
local authority who has first issued a “Closure Notice” (s.76). They sit on a site of legal
archaeological interest. In the ten years before the 2014 Act there were similar statutory
provisions about closing so-called “crackhouse” premises associated with Class A drug
use. That was Part 1 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, discussed in Metropolitan
Police Commissioner v Hooper [2005] EWHC 199 (Admin) [2005] 1 WLR 1995 at §8.
Part 1A was then added in 2008, in relation to premises associated with persistent
disorder or persistent serious nuisance, discussed in R (Byrne) v Metropolitan Police
Commissioner [2010] EWHC 3656 (Admin) at §5.
4. Here is an overview of the case-law which applies to Closure Orders under Part 4
Chapter 3 of the 2014 Act and its predecessor species in the 2003 Act. Hooper and the
sequel case of R (Turner) v Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court [2005] EWHC 2568
(Admin) [2006] 1 WLR 220 decided that the magistrates’ court – in order to secure
Article 6 fair hearing rights and in the interests of justice – could adjourn beyond the
statutorily-prescribed 14-day period, invoking the power in s.54 of the 1980 Act and
with the consequence that the Closure Notice lapsed. R (Taylor) v Metropolitan Police
Commissioner [2009] EWHC 264 (Admin) decided that the costs power in s.64 of the
1980 Act was applicable. Three cases – Byrne, the predecessor case of R (Errington) v
Metropolitan Police Authority [2006] EWHC 1155 (Admin) (2007) 171 JP 89, and the
successor case under the 2014 Act of R (Qin) v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
[2017] EWHC 2750 (Admin) [2018] PTSR 966 – all decided that public law collateral
challenges to a closure notice did not preclude or vitiate a closure order. R (Cleary) v
Highbury Magistrates’ Court [2006] EWHC 1869 (Admin) [2007] 1 WLR 1272
explained how hearsay and disclosure issues were to be approached to achieve both
2
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
1 cases
-
Fiona Ford, R (on the application of) v Coventry Magistrates' Court
...it is necessary to consider the recent decision of Fordham J in the case of Chief Constable of Humberside Police v Kelly Morgan [2024] EWHC 2859 (Admin). That was an appeal by way of case stated by the Chief Constable from a decision of the magistrates’ court sitting in Hull. There the dist......
