NM v Birmingham Magistrates' Court and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Treacy |
| Judgment Date | 15 March 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWCA Civ 515 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 15 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No: C1/2015/1160 |
[2016] EWCA Civ 515
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
(MR JUSTICE WALKER)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Treacy
Case No: C1/2015/1160
Mr Matthew Stanbury (instructed Irwin Mitchell LLP) appeared on behalf of the Applicant
The Respondents did not appear and were not represented
This is a renewed application by a claimant for permission to appeal the order of the Divisional Court which dismissed an application for judicial review of the decision of the Birmingham Magistrates' Court to uphold the decision of the Chief Constable of the West Midlands on an application to him to review the notification requirements imposed on the applicant under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Three points are raised. Firstly, the Divisional Court was wrong to hold that there was no requirement for the Magistrates' Court to have carried out a proportionality assessment with reference to the effect of the continuation of the notification requirements on the offender or his family. Secondly (and allied to the first ground), it is argued that the Divisional Court took an unduly restrictive approach and thus came to an erroneous construction of section 91D(1)(b). Reference has been made to the decision of the Divisional Court in Hamill v Chelmsford Magistrates' Court [2014] EWHC 2799 (Admin) and in particular paragraphs 66 to 68. It is to be noted that the court in that case did not have the benefit of full argument. The third ground challenges the Divisional Court's finding that the applicant had to discharge a burden on the balance of probabilities under section 91C(2) that it was no longer necessary for him to remain subject to the indefinite notification requirements.
Mr Stanbury for the applicant has set out his grounds clearly and contends that these are grounds of some importance with a real prospect of success. He urges that the difference of approach between the Divisional Court in Hamill and the present case in relation to his first two grounds...
To continue reading
Request your trial