Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary v Potter
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE CLARKE,Mr Justice Jack,MR JUSTICE JACK |
| Judgment Date | 13 October 2003 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] EWHC 74 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/5152/2002 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 13 October 2003 |
[2003] EWHC 74 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand London WC2
Lord Justice Clarke
Mr Justice Jack
CO/5152/2002
MR J BEER appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT
THE RESPONDENT was unrepresented
This was to be the hearing of an appeal by way of case stated by the Chief Constable of Lancashire against the refusal of Deputy District Judge Alan Jones sitting in the magistrates court in Preston on 24 July 2002 to grant an anti-social behaviour order against the respondent, Lisa Potter, who was said to be a prostitute.
The application arose out of what was said to be a significant problem caused by a large number of prostitutes operating, albeit not in concert, in a residential area of Preston. Applications were initially made against a number of respondents who were alleged to be prostitutes, but as I understand it, on the application of some of the respondents, which was determined by a clerk to the justices, after hearing argument on both sides, it was ordered that the cases be tried separately. In the event, only the application against the respondent has proceeded so far.
When the application was refused, the appellant requested the District Judge to state a case, which he did on 16 October 2002. In effect, the applications against the other respondents are in obeyance pending the decision of this court on this appeal.
The respondent was represented before the District Judge by Messrs Inghams, who are solicitors in Preston, but she herself did not turn up at the hearing. The application notice was served on Inghams some time in November. We are told, and entirely accept, that before that occurred, a representative of the appellant's solicitors spoke to a representative of Inghams on the telephone and was told that they were still acting for the respondent and would be acting for her in this appeal.
That telephone conversation took place on 11 November. They were, as I understand it, told that Inghams were acting for her as standing solicitors in relation to other criminal matters in which she was alleged to be a prostitute.
The appellant's solicitors naturally entirely accepted what they told, and did not investigate further whether there had been direct contact between Inghams and their client in relation to this appeal. After that, the appellant's solicitors naturally assumed that Inghams would be representing her in relation to the appeal. As I understand it, the court also proceeded on that basis, although it is right to say that no skeleton argument was ever lodged on behalf of the respondent.
On 21 January, that is just three days ago, Inghams sent a fax to the court which was in fact received on 22 January in which they say:
"In the absence of any recent instructions from our client, we shall not be arranging for any representation for Miss Potter on the scehduled hearing next Friday 24 instant."
Mr Justice Jack and I were somewhat concerned that this meant that only the appellant's submissions...
To continue reading
Request your trial