R Jason Place v Westminster Magistrates' Court
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice William Davis |
| Judgment Date | 05 July 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] EWHC 1922 (Admin) |
| Date | 05 July 2018 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/3211/2017 |
[2018] EWHC 1922 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Mr Justice William Davis
CO/3211/2017
THE APPLICANT appeared in Person (via video link).
Mr J. P. Waite (instructed by the Government Legal Department) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
This is an application for judicial review by Jason Place. His history, in terms of the criminal process, is not uncomplicated. He was, in 2012, convicted of conspiracy to defraud and in June of that year sentenced to 81 months' imprisonment. It was, as may be determined from the sentence, a significant fraud and, unsurprisingly, confiscation proceedings followed.
On 24 February 2014, a confiscation order was made in the sum of £50,000. That order was well short of the benefit figure that was assessed, which was well in excess of £800,000. By the time that order was made, the claimant was, so I am told, on parole licence. The term in default set by the Crown Court judge was 18 months' imprisonment.
On 20 May 2015, Mr Place was arrested in relation to a quite separate allegation of harassment and he was remanded in custody. Two days later, he was recalled to prison in relation to the earlier sentence of 81 months due to breach of his licence.
We then come to what is a critical date in his history, 21 July 2015. That was the date on which his case was listed before the Westminster Magistrates' Court before the Enforcement Hearing Court. The district judge, District Judge Zani, considered his case and issued an enforcement order due to non-payment of the confiscation order. The term was set at 470 days to run consecutive to the sentence for which he was recalled.
Unbeknownst to the district judge, at least so it would appear, whether it was unknown to others is not so clear, within a matter of weeks the Parole Board ended the recall to which Mr Place had been subject as a result of his breach of licence. So, on 12 August 2015, he started to serve the default term. The halfway point of that default term was in April of 2016. Further proceedings intervened before that date. In November and December of 2015, Mr Place was tried for some quite separate matters at the Crown Court. He was convicted 15 December 2015 and sentenced to 60 months' imprisonment. That was ordered to be served consecutive to the default term. Thus it was to commence in April of 2016. Leaving aside any early release provision which may or may not have applied to Mr Place, that would give his release date in the later part of this year, 2018.
Finally, on 24 January 2017, Mr Place's case was brought back before the Westminster Magistrates' Court in order for the default term to be amended. The case was re-opened under s.142 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 for recalculation of the default days and the default term was amended to 430 days. That thereby had a knock-on effect on the effect of the sentence of 60 months' imprisonment. These proceedings for judicial review were not issued until the later part of 2017. Mr Place's case is that the enforcement order of 21 July 2015 was unlawful. He says it was unlawful because there was an obvious breach of natural justice, he was given no opportunity to address the court in relation to monies he had already paid and in respect of the payment plan said to be in place. Had he been given that opportunity, then it may well be that he would have persuaded the district judge to take a different course. He also says that he had no notification of the proceedings in January of 2017, which is when the order was amended by reducing the days. Whether that is of any practical significance is a moot point. The issue which the claimant raised in his original skeleton argument was expressed in this way:
“Has the claimant been unlawfully imprisoned for 235 days (that is half of 470 days) whilst there was an agreed an active payment plan in force? Did the claimant receive a fair hearing at Westminster Magistrates' when he was not even produced at court or permitted to make any representations concerning the agreed payment plans that have always been in place?”
The procedural history of this application is profoundly unhappy. The matter first came before Dove J on paper on 15 January 2018. Dove J indicated that the court would require to be fully informed about the justification for the notice that was issued in January of 2017 and how it was served on the claimant because Dove J thought that these issues were relevant to the merits of the claim. The issues were to be addressed to the Regional Confiscation Unit, which he took to be the relevant unit dealing with these matters. Dove J's order was served on the Regional Confiscation Unit. No response was received.
There the matter lay until the claimant made an application for interim relief. The matter was considered by Jay J on 23 March 2018. He required the application for permission to be adjourned into court to be listed as soon as possible after 10 April 2018. He noted the fact that there had been no response by the Regional Confiscation Unit. He ordered an oral hearing because he could not see any immediate...
To continue reading
Request your trial