R Peter Chuah v Birmingham Crown Court DPP (Interested Party)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Hickinbottom,Mr Justice Saunders |
| Judgment Date | 30 July 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 3336 (Admin) |
| Date | 30 July 2013 |
| Docket Number | CO/9246/2012 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2013] EWHC 3336 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Priory Courts
33 Bull Street
Birmingham
West Midlands
B4 6DS
Mr Justice Saunders
Mr Justice Hickinbottom
CO/9246/2012
The Claimant appeared in Person
The Defendants did not appear and were not represented
On 21 March 2009, the Claimant Peter Chuah was involved in an altercation with a security guard at Selly Oak Hospital following which the Claimant was arrested and charged with common assault. On 9 March 2009, the Birmingham Magistrates' Court found him guilty of that offence. He appealed, and the appeal was dismissed by Birmingham Crown Court (His Honour Judge Webb and magistrates) on 22 January 2010.
The Claimant, however, was still not satisfied. He wished to appeal again. In 2012, he attempted to appeal to the Crown Court, a second time, leave to appeal (which was in any event required, because the appeal was by then well out of time) being refused by Her Honour Judge Fisher on 12 August 2012. Then, on 31 August, the Claimant commenced this claim for judicial review stating in the claim:
"I was convicted of common assault at Birmingham Magistrates' Court on 8th June 2009. I would like to appeal out-of-time."
That is the Claimant's substantive purpose in pursuing this claim, to bring a further appeal against his conviction. That conviction for him has had serious consequences because, prior to it, he was a registered nurse.
However, in form, in the various documents which the Claimant has lodged with the claim, he seeks to challenge by way of judicial review three decisions: (i) the decision of the Magistrates' Court on 9 March 2009 to convict him, (ii) the decision of the Crown Court on 22 January 2010 to dismiss his appeal, and (iii) the decision of the Crown Court not to allow him to bring a second appeal there. Permission to proceed was refused by Haddon-Cave J on 1 February 2013; and the Claimant, who is representing himself, has renewed his application before this court this morning.
The facts giving rise to the claim can be briefly stated. On 21 March 2009, the Claimant visited his brother, who was an in-patient at Selly Oak Hospital. It was the prosecution case that the Claimant had been drinking, and he behaved abusively and aggressively to staff and other patients. The ward sister, Emma Scrivens, asked him to calm down; and, when he did not do so, she called security and a senior security officer, Phillip Newsam, duly attended. The Claimant was asked to leave, but would not do so. The security officer therefore started to escort him from the premises. However, when they got to the main entrance, the Claimant turned round and poked him to the face, causing him reddening and some discomfort there. The security officer then restrained the Claimant, and the police were called. Police officers arrived, but the Claimant continued to be argumentative and unco-operative. The officers formed the view that he had been drinking. They arrested him on suspicion of assault, and he was taken to the police station where he was interviewed and later charged.
The Claimant denied that this version of events painted a proper picture of the incident; and, in particular, he denied that he was the aggressor. He said in his interview — and later in his evidence to the court — that the security officer approached him when he was at his brother's bedside, asked him to leave and then, without further to-do, forcibly pulled him off his chair and, with his arm up his back, began escorting him out. Whilst waiting for the lift, the security guard had banged his head against the wall. The Claimant accepted that, at that stage, he pointed towards the security guard saying, "You hurt me now"; but he denied touching the security officer, or, if he did touch him, he said it was self-defence or by accident.
The Director of Public Prosecutions has been joined into this claim as an interested party. In helpful summary grounds, it is contended by him that permission to proceed with the claim should be refused on a number of procedural grounds.
First, the claim is late. CPR Rule 54.5 requires a claim for judicial review to be brought promptly, and in any event within 3 months of the decision sought to be challenged. The court may extend that time for good reason, but this claim seeks to challenge decisions months — indeed, years — out of time, without identifying any good grounds for being late. The Claimant, in his turn, says that the reason for the delay is that he was fighting alcohol addiction, possibly (it seems from the documents we have seen) with some success. But there is no evidence as to why this meant that he could not have brought these proceedings earlier. Finality is an important principle of public law, but particularly in a challenge to a decision in criminal proceedings.
Second, the DPP contends that proceedings by way of judicial review is wrong, because the Claimant seeks to undermine the basis of the conviction and so any challenge to the Crown Court rulings ought to have been by way of Case Stated.
I should perhaps add, as a possible third procedural deficiency, that the Claimant seeks to attack the decision of the justices to convict, but has not joined the Magistrates' Court into this action as a party.
In my view, there is considerable force in these submissions made on behalf of the DPP as to procedural matters. In particular, I would echo the comments of this court in R (B) v Carlisle Crown Court [2009] EWHC 3540. In that case, both the President of the Queen's Bench Division Sir Anthony May (at [29]) and Langstaff...
To continue reading
Request your trial