R Oyebola v Wood Green Crown Court
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Singh |
| Judgment Date | 16 August 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWHC 3695 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/984/2016 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 16 August 2016 |
[2016] EWHC 3695 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Singh
CO/984/2016
The Claimant appeared in Person
The Defendant did not appear and was not represented
This is a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review. Permission was refused on the papers by Cranston J on 21 June 2016.
The order which the claimant seeks to challenge was made by the Crown Court at Wood Green on 8 January 2016. To explain the effect of that order it is necessary briefly to summarise the background facts.
On 13 April 2012, in the Crown Court before His Honour Judge Carr, it was found, in confiscation proceedings, that the claimant had benefited in the sum of £1,503.325.78 and he had realisable assets of £666,994.97. There was an appeal against that confiscation order. On 23 July 2013 the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), in a judgment which has the neutral citations reference [2013] EWCA Crim 1052, allowed the appeal to the extent that it varied the order. It directed that the realisable amount figure was to be £601,241.95. This was to be paid within 6 months and a sentence in default was set of 4 years' imprisonment. In due course the claimant has been found to be in default and is currently serving a prison sentence.
As I have mentioned, the order which it is sought to challenge in the present proceedings was made by the Crown Court on 8th January 2016. The matter came before His Honour Judge Pawlak who varied the order to the extent that he deleted the value of a Rolex watch from the schedule of assets and reduced the order by £4,000 and a further £60 to reflect funds that were not in fact available in a Nationwide account. The realisable assets figure therefore, as a consequence of the January order, became the sum of £597,181.95.
In his written grounds, filed in support of the present application, the claimant has set out a wide-ranging set of allegations including for example that the variation of the order occurred due to the fact that a person or persons in the Metropolitan Police may have stolen a gold Rolex wrist watch listed as a realisable asset. A number of other allegations are made. I have read the documents fully and carefully but it is unnecessary for present purposes to rehearse them at length.
What the claimant asserts is a number of matters which, in my judgment, essentially constitute allegations of fact with which he seeks to challenge the order made by the Crown Court on the basis that it was wrongly made and should not have been made.
It is important to emphasise, particularly because the claimant acts in person, that the jurisdiction of this court by way of judicial review exists so as to control the lawfulness of the decisions of public authorities, including where relevant,...
To continue reading
Request your trial