R Arthur v Crown Court at Blackfriars
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Irwin,Mr Justice Goss |
| Judgment Date | 05 December 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWHC 3416 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/3659/2017 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 05 December 2017 |
[2017] EWHC 3416 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Irwin
and
Mr Justice Goss
CO/3659/2017
and
APPEARANCES
Mr S Knight (instructed by Birnberg Peirce) appeared on behalf of the Claimant.
THE DEFENDANT did not attend and was not represented.
Mr B Douglas-Jones (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service (Appeals and Review Unit)) appeared on behalf of the Interested Party.
I will ask Mr Justice Goss to give the first judgment.
This is an application for permission to judicially review the decision of the Crown Court at Blackfriars not to state a case when upholding the decision of the Magistrates' Court to convict the claimant of assault. However, as identified by the single judge when ordering the case to be listed as a rolled-up hearing, the real issue to be decided in this case relates to the underlying grounds of appeal by way of case stated. The approach to be followed in these circumstances is set out in R v Blackfriars Crown Court ex parte Sunworld Limited [2000] 1 WLR 2102 at 2106:
“(1) Where a court, be it a Magistrates' Court or a Crown Court, refuses to state a case, then the party aggrieved should without delay apply for permission to bring judicial review, either (a) to mandamus it to state a case and/or (b) to quash the order sought to be appealed. (2) If the court below has already (a) given a reasoned judgment containing all the necessary findings of fact and/or (b) explained its refusal to state a case in terms which clearly raise the true point of law in issue, then the correct course would be for the single judge, assuming he thinks the point properly arguable, to grant permission for judicial review which directly challenges the order complained of, thereby avoiding the need for a case to be stated at all […] (4) This court for its part will adopt whatever course involves the fewest additional steps and the least expense, delay and duplication of proceedings.”
We grant permission to the claimant to proceed with the claimant for judicial review.
The claimant was convicted on 23 rd November 2016 at Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court of an offence of common assault of his neighbour Anthony Williamson in the early evening of 22 nd August 2016. There was a history of tension and dispute between the two men, largely due to a shared balcony outside their flats. Both had made previous complaints to the police and the housing authorities. The balcony gave access to Mr Williamson's flat and contained a rubbish chute used by the claimant.
On 31 st March 2017, on appeal to the Crown Court at Blackfriars, Mr Recorder Nissen Q.C. and two lay justices upheld the conviction in the lower court. The reasons were given ex tempore at the hearing by the. There is a full transcript of the proceedings.
The prosecution case was that on 22 nd August last at around 6.00 p.m. Mr Williamson became aware of the claimant standing on the balcony taking pictures of a ladder outside the Williamson's front door. It is said that the claimant had an iPad, his camera phone and a spy pen. Mr Williamson went outside and asked the claimant why he was taking photos. The claimant said, “What is it to do with you?” and advanced towards Mr Williamson holding a spy pen. Mr Williamson stated that he was also filming and pointed towards a camera he had in an earpiece. According to Mr Williamson, the claimant then punched him once on the nose. Mr Williamson retreated into the flat. He tried to grab a walking stick, which he described in the lower court as a walking stick but which is described in the notes as a metal pole, but his wife took it off him. She had seen her husband on the doorstep to their flat and was standing at his shoulder when the claimant came towards him. There was a discussion between the men about the filming and the next thing she knew was her husband's head coming back and him saying, “He's just punched me in the face.” She never saw the punch but she did see his nose bleeding. She then restrained her husband by wrestling him over a walking stick he then picked up, and forced him inside. She called the police.
It was the claimant's case that he was up on the balcony with his rubbish when he saw Mr Williamson had a ladder which was encroaching on to his window, so he took a photo with his phone. Mr Williamson came out of his flat. Mr Williamson came towards him saying, “Get out of here”, and pushed him. The claimant pushed Mr Williamson's hands off him. Mr Williamson went back inside his flat, got a standing lamp and came back on to the balcony where he started to take the lampshade off him. His wife came out and dragged him back inside after wrestling the lampshade off Mr Williamson. The claimant denies that he punched Mr Williamson as alleged or at all.
Following his arrest on the day after the incident the claimant was interviewed by the police. He was legally represented. He submitted a prepared statement in the following terms:
“It is alleged that I assaulted Mr Williamson on 22 nd August 2016. I totally deny this allegation. I was by the rubbish chute. Mr Williamson approached me and was in an agitated state. He pushed me on the chest with both his hands and said ‘get out of here.’ I pushed him away from me to prevent him from further assaulting me. At no time did I punch him or cause any injury.”
The claimant then answered “No comment” to further questions.
On 19 th April 2017 the claimant made an in-time application to the Crown Court to state a case in respect of four questions. On 5 th June 2017 the claimant received written answers to each of the four questions by the Recorder which amounted to a refusal to state a case with reasons. This was headed as an “Official Decision” on the application and was signed by the Recorder “On behalf of the Crown Court.”
The first issue that arises relates to the status of the reasoning provided by the Recorder in the note dated 5 th June 2017. In reliance on the decision in the case of the R v Crown Court at Snaresbrook ex p Input Management Limited, [1999] WL 477693 it is submitted upon behalf of the claimant that the reasoning in that note has no status and this court should have regard only to the transcript of the judgment and not to any subsequent reasoning provided by him. The Director of Public Prosecutions, who was ordered to be made an interested party in these proceedings, has submitted that this court “may feel that the Crown Court was able to amplify its reasoning in accordance with the decision in the case of Marshall v CPS [2015] EWHC 2333 at 30”. In that case a Magistrates' Court amplified in its stated case their reasons for dismissing the appeal. That, of course, was not the situation that obtains here.
Mr Knight, who represents the claimant and who has advanced every possible argument that could be advanced in relation to this application in a cogent way, has rightly distinguished that case and refers us to the Criminal Procedure Rule 35.2(5). That rule provides that
“(5) If the court decides not to state a case, the court officer must serve on each party—
(a) notice of that decision; and
(b) the court's written reasons for that decision, if not more than 21 days later the applicant asks for those reasons.”
That was the procedure followed in this case. It would be helpful if the Criminal Rules Procedure Committee felt able to formulate guidance in relation to the formalities relating to such reasons according to the constitution of the bench responsible for the decision. In any case, it is incumbent on any court which declines to state a case to set out its reasons for so doing. Such reasons need not be elaborate but they must be sufficient for the reasoning of the court to be understood. It is not necessary to descend to the details of the case of Marshall v CPS and comment on the court's approach in the circumstances that exist in this case, for counsel for the interested party has been content to advance his submissions without recourse to the amplified reasoning set out in the Recorder's note. The case has, therefore, proceeded on the core complaint on behalf of the claimant relating to the alleged errors in law made by the Recorder and justices and whether the Crown Court's reasons in its judgment for dismissing the appeal and convicting the claimant were adequate, in other words following the procedure set out in R v Blackfriars Crown Court, ex. p....
To continue reading
Request your trial