R Billy Jobson v Secretary of State for Justice
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Garnham |
| Judgment Date | 06 November 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] EWHC 3340 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/2897/2018 |
| Date | 06 November 2018 |
[2018] EWHC 3340 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Mr Justice Garnham
CO/2897/2018
Mr. S. Cragg QC (instructed by Hodge Jones & Allen) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
Mr. M Gullick (instructed by the Government Legal Department) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
The applicant, Billy Jobson, was wrongly convicted of three offences of breaching notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 before it was discovered that the restriction requirements no longer applied to him. Those convictions were all quashed on appeal out of time.
Mr Jobson then applied for compensation for miscarriage of justice under s.133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The defendant refused the application on the basis that the overturning of the convictions had not been on the basis of a “new or newly discovered fact”.
Permission to apply for judicial review of that decision was refused on the papers by Sir Ross Cranston, sitting as a High Court Judge.
Before me this morning, Mr Stephen Cragg QC renewed the application for permission to apply, contending that the coming to an end of notification requirements was a “fact” that was only discovered after he had been wrongly convicted three times.
The history of this matter can be summarised shortly. On 28 September 1993, at Maidstone Crown Court, the applicant was sentenced to a total of seven years' imprisonment for offences of buggery, indecent assault and breach of a suspended sentence. He was released from prison on licence on 6 June 1997, whereupon he was made subject to notification requirements in accordance with s.1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997. On 1 May 2004, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 came into force, replacing the 1997 Act. Section 81 of the 2003 Act dealt with notification requirements for those convicted of relevant offences prior to that enactment.
As I have said, on three occasions thereafter, the claimant was convicted under s.91(1) of the 2003 Act of failing to comply with his notification requirements. Those convictions occurred on 20 September 2006, 17 October 2007 and 1November 2009, all at Medway Magistrates' Court.
On 23 May 2014, the Metropolitan Police conducted a review of the claimant's case. It was found that an error been made, and in accordance with s.82(1) of the 2003 Act, the notification requirement should have ceased on 29 September 2003, 10 years after the date of the applicant's conviction. On 15 August 2014, the applicant appealed to the crown court against his convictions. He appealed on the basis that he was not subject to notification requirements at the time of the alleged breach. Those appeals were successful.
On 23 November 2015, the claimant made an application for compensation under s.133 of the 198Act. That application was rejected. The defendant asserted that all the relevant facts concerning the claimant's original conviction and the notification requirements were known at the time of each conviction. Relying on the decisions of Andukwa v Secretary of State for Justice [2014] EWHC 398 (QB) and R v SSHD ex parte Bateman and Howse (1995) 7 Admin LR 175, the defendant rejected the application.
The relevant provisions relating to compensation for miscarriage of justice is s.133 of the 1998 Act. That provides, as is material:
“when a person has been convicted of a criminal offence and when...
To continue reading
Request your trial