R Mr Pegram v Bristol Crown Court and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Andrew Baker |
| Judgment Date | 22 March 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] EWHC 965 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 22 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/3851/2018 |
[2019] EWHC 965 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
SITTING AT BRISTOL
Courtroom No. 7
2 Redcliffe Street
Bristol
BS1 6GB
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Andrew Baker
Case No: CO/3851/2018
Miss Jones appeared on behalf of the Claimant
NO APPEARANCE by or on behalf of the Defendants
This judicial review is brought with the permission of Garnham J, granted on the papers on 20 November 2018. It arises out of the unsuccessful appeal by the claimant, John Pegram, at Bristol Crown Court, against a conviction in the Bristol Magistrates' Court, of an offence contrary to Section 89 (1) of the Police Act 1996, that is to say an assault of a Police Constable in the execution of his duty. The Magistrates' Court conviction was on 22 February 2018 and the unsuccessful appeal to the Crown Court took place on 25 May 2018.
By an application dated 15 June 2018, the claimant requested that Bristol Crown Court state a case for the purposes of an appeal to this court, by way of case stated, on one or more questions of law that he asserted arose out of his conviction and unsuccessful appeal.
The underlying, original circumstances were that the claimant was part of a counter-protest in Bristol City Centre, on 10 September 2017, to a demonstration by far-right protestors. In the course of what was, no doubt, a noisy and to some extent chaotic scene, a PC Millet took hold of the claimant's right arm, the claimant at that point having his back to PC Millet. Within no more than a few seconds, the officer had been struck to the face by the flailing arm of the claimant. Therefore, ultimately the issue before the magistrates' and then in turn before the Crown Court, was whether what the claimant did, such that his arm or hand flailed into contact with the officer's face in that way, constituted an assault, and if so, an assault occurring when PC Millet was acting in the course of executing his duty.
The case for the Crown, and PC Millet's evidence, as to his purpose in taking hold of the claimant's arm was that he was doing so to get his attention so as to administer a Public Order Act warning concerning his behaviour.
The request to state a case for an appeal on one or more questions of law received in the first place an unacceptably brief, blunt, and wholly unreasoned response. The appeal had been presided over by Mr Recorder Atkinson QC, sitting with magistrates in the normal way. As reported to the claimant or those acting on his behalf, the learned Recorder decided as follows in response to the request to state a case: “ I have been able to review this matter; my decision is to refuse to state a case”.
In R (Forest Heath District Council) v North West Suffolk (Mildenhall) Magistrates' Court [1997] EWCA Civ 1575, Lord Bingham, LCJ, as he was then, referred to the entitlement of a lower court to decline to state a case for the purposes of appeal by way of case stated if the proposed appeal was, and therefore the request to state a case was,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atmosphere and Context: Use of Force in the Execution of Duty and Retaliatory Force: Pegram v DPP [2019] EWHC 2673 (Admin)
...rejected, however, following a successful judicial reviewapplication (R (on the application of Pegram) v Bristol Crown Court [2019] EWHC 965 (Admin)), thecase was stated to the Divisional Pegram, therefore, concerns the appeal by way of case stated to the Divisional Court. The Divisional Co......