R Barbara Grace Tucker v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police Secretary of State for the Home Department (Interested Party)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeTHE PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION,MR JUSTICE MADDISON
Judgment Date04 December 2008
Neutral Citation[2008] EWHC 3587 (Admin),[2008] EWHC 3329 (Admin)
Date04 December 2008
Docket NumberCO/2460/2008,CO/9014/2008
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

[2008] EWHC 3329 (Admin)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Before: Mr Justice Sullivan

CO/9014/2008

Between:
The Queen on the Application of Chintu
Claimant
and
London Borough of Havering
Defendant

The Claimant appeared in person

Mark Baumohl (instructed by London Borough of Havering) appeared on behalf of the Defendant

(Approved by the court)

MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN
1

: Mr Chintu, as I said to you earlier, I am not a social worker and there are well-established principles that say you do not come along to the court for judicial review if there is an alternative remedy you can pursue by way of internal appeal or complaint or asking for a review and so on. So it is quite obvious to me from looking at the witness statement and hearing you that these sort of detailed disputes about how much should be paid for heat and how much is necessary to pay for food and whether you should be seeking charitable help or not are the sort of detailed complaints that you should be pursuing with the council's complaints manager if you think that the social worker you are dealing with is not dealing properly with your case. The same would apply if you were complaining about a planning matter and a planning officer was dealing with your planning application.

2

You should go, first of all, to the council's complaints manager. Only if that does not work should you possibly be coming along to the court. I think a more appropriate remedy might be the local government ombudsman, but I accept that might take too long and you might need an urgent decision in children's welfare cases. I am afraid I am not going to grant your renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review, because what you are trying to do is to appeal on the merits: you are not identifying any error of law and you should pursue the matter by going to the council's complaints manager.

3

Is the support service helping you?

4

NEW SPEAKER: Yeah, I'm the personal support service —

MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN
5

: That is very kind. Thank you very much.

6

The lady from the personal support unit will help you. So I am sending you away, but I am not sending you away empty-handed: I am sending you away so that you will make your complaints to the proper place.

7

THE CLAIMANT: My Lord, I've got the letters here. We started complaining from March/April. On page 24 there is a letter. We have submitted our complaints to the chief executive, to the council, to the Member of Parliament.

MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN
8

: What is the answer?

9

THE CLAIMANT: They haven't responded. And the social worker, since our children were subjected to child protection plan, visits our home once every 2 weeks and we have been informing the social worker that we're having this problem, this problem, but the social worker has said that -- he takes the message, but they have not been able to help us. Every 2 weeks he comes to visit our family.

MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN
10

: What I am suggesting is that you put your complaints in a letter to the complaints manager.

11

Mr Baumohl, do you have a piece of paper which you can give to the claimant so that he has the address?

12

MR BAUMOHL: My Lord, yes (Handed).

13

THE CLAIMANT: My Lord, the timescale: for instance, we started this problem in March. It's almost 7 months now. We are living in a house without heating.

MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN
14

: Do you see what the council say? In their witness statement, and in some of the earlier correspondence, it is quite obvious that they are saying that there seems to be excessive charging in terms of the energy use; they are saying you will not take advice to go to charities and so on; you will not take advice to go and get low- price food and so forth. I am not saying whether they are right or wrong. There is obviously a dispute about that -- you do not agree -- but I am not the one to resolve the dispute, because it is not a point of law at all: it is a social services dispute and that ought to be sorted out within the council's complaints department. Only if they go wrong in law do you come along to me.

15

THE CLAIMANT: My Lord, Havering has given me 14 days to pay council tax. 14 days to pay council tax when they said they're going to be paying council tax for our family.

MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN
16

: Well, Havering cannot get blood out of a stone, so if you do not pay, then no doubt they will have to think about what they are going to do about it, but I am afraid your renewed application has to be refused, because this is judicial review; this is not some sort of court of appeal from social workers. So you make your complaint to that complaint body.

17

Mr Baumohl, I assume no further application is made. In the circumstances, it probably would not be productive.

18

MR BAUMOHL: My Lord, I wonder whether your Lordship would entertain an application for the costs of the acknowledgment of service. There was not any request in the acknowledgment of service itself. The reason I make the application is that since that was put in, prior to today, a third application for judicial review has been issued. Permission has not yet been dealt with on that. It may be appropriate in due course to seek to set off any costs, should Mr Chintu be successful, although I have to say I rather doubt he will be in the third JR. I accept there was no request in the acknowledgment of service.

MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN
19

: I think I have to deal with the merits of this case as I find it. You would not normally be entitled to the costs of today, although your attendance has been materially helpful. If you did not ask for the costs of the acknowledgement of service, you probably would not normally get it and, given the subject matter, it seems to me that you would simply get a request that you pay your own bill, on the claimant's own case. So I am afraid it is maybe one of the penalties of public office that the council will just have to bear. No order as to costs.

20

Thank you very much, personal support unit. Could you redirect Mr Chintu away and explain to him that I can simply deal with legal matters; if he has complaints about the merits of the way they are treating him, he has to go to the council first of all. I realise he may have tried before, but now he has come here and he has got the right address, maybe that will sort something out.

21

MR BAUMOHL: There is one other matter that my instructing solicitor has flagged up. In the third judicial review Mr Chintu has made an application for urgent relief to prevent, as I understand it, the local authority carrying out a visit pursuant to the child protection matters. The visit is due to take place on the 6th. I appreciate your Lordship does not have the papers, but those instructing me have wondered whether we can deal with that today.

MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN
22

: I do not know that I could fairly deal with it today if I do not have the papers. I have absolutely no idea. When was the application for urgent relief made?

23

MR BAUMOHL: We think it was Monday, my Lord.

MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN
24

: It is not really for me to advise, but you can find out from the Administrative Court which judge, if any, has been allocated, because by now someone ought to have been given the application for interim relief and your instructing solicitor can make arrangements to get an urgent fax message to the judge who is considering the urgent application, if the council feels it wants to say anything in response to the urgent application. I would have thought that is the better way to deal with it.

25

MR BAUMOHL: Thank you.

MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN
26

: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr Chintu.

[2008] EWHC 3587 (Admin)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice

The Strand

London

WC2A 2LL

Before:

The President of the Queen's Bench Division

(Lord Justice May)

and

Mr Justice Maddison

CO/2460/2008

The Queen on the application of Barbara Grace Tucker
Claimant
and
Commissioner of Metropolitan Police
Defendant

and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Interested Party

The Claimant appeared in person

Mr A Clemens (instructed by Weightmans) appeared on behalf of the Defendant

1

Thursday 4 December 2008

THE PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
2

Mr Justice Maddison will give the first judgment.

MR JUSTICE MADDISON
3

1. This court has before it two applications. The first is a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review, and the second is a renewed application for injunctions, both made by Barbara Grace Tucker. The first of those applications names as defendants the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Those identified as interested parties are Brian William Hoar, the Crown Prosecution Service, the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court, the Southwark Crown Court and Mr Alan Duncan MP.

4

2. The first application describes the decision to be judicially reviewed as "unlawfully enforcing SOCPA [Serious Organised Crime and Police Act] 2005, sections 132 to 138, serious procedural irregularities, abuse of process, ongoing unlawful reportings, arrests, prosecutions, convictions and thefts". As to the remedy being sought, section 6 of the claim form states as follows:

"Declaration of incompatibility, order of mandamus, injunction against Metropolitan Police Commissioner,...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT