R Terence Patrick Ewing v Crown Court at Isleworth
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Bean,Mrs Justice Simler |
| Judgment Date | 16 January 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] EWHC 288 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/5081/2017 |
| Date | 16 January 2019 |
[2019] EWHC 288 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Bean
Mrs Justice Simler
CO/5081/2017
and
THE CLAIMANT appeared in Person.
Mr L Mably QC and Mr H Flanagan (instructed by the Government Legal Department) appeared on behalf of the Defendant and the Second Interested Party.
THE FIRST INTERESTED PARTY was not present and was not represented.
On 2 August 2017, in court 10 at the Crown Court at Isleworth, an appeal was being heard by Mr Recorder Hill-Smith and two lay justices. The case was in its fourth day. Dr Sheida Oraki was appealing against conviction for obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty. Her son, Mr Ramtin Oraki, was appealing against a conviction on a similar count and one of assaulting a police officer.
The present claimant, Mr Terence Ewing, had been observing much of the case. He was neither a party to it nor a witness in it, but a supporter of the appellants. At about 3 p.m. on 2 August, he left court. He returned at 5.15 p.m. when the case was still going on. The recorder was delivering the court's judgment on the appeal. We have a transcript of his ruling which runs to 10 pages. Only when the recorder had finished giving that judgment was the claimant permitted to re-enter the court.
Although the facts of the Oraki case itself, and indeed the Crown Court's decision on the appeals, are not relevant, we note for the record that Dr Sheida Oraki's appeal against conviction was dismissed. Mr Ramtin Oraki's appeal against the assault conviction was allowed. His appeal against the obstruction conviction was dismissed, but he appealed by way of case stated to this court, which quashed the conviction: see the reported judgment at [2018] 2 WLR 1725.
We have witness statements from the claimant and from Ms Harpreet Dale, Director of Operations for the Harrow and Isleworth Crown Courts, as to the exact facts of what occurred outside court 10 on 2 August. There are very small differences of fact, but they are, as we see it, of no significance to the point which we have to determine, which was whether the claimant's exclusion was lawful.
Mr Ewing is a vexatious litigant who has to obtain the permission of a High Court judge to issue proceedings, pursuant to section 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. It is not suggested that that was the reason why he was excluded from the court or that any other member of the public would have been treated differently. It did mean that he had to obtain leave under section 42, as he did successfully in R (on the application of Ewing) v Cardiff Crown Court [2016] 4 WLR 21. Such leave was granted by Supperstone J on 11 January 2018. So the claim was issued, and permission for judicial review was granted by Walker J on the papers on 23 April 2018.
The Director of Public Prosecutions (“DPP”) and HM Courts & Tribunals Service (“HMCTS”) were added as interested parties. The DPP has played no active part in the proceedings. Mr Mably QC and Mr Flanagan have represented both the defendant Crown Court and HMCTS.
In granting permission, Walker J observed:
“An usher can tell those who enter a courtroom while proceedings are underway that they must do so quietly. If they enter quietly then it is difficult to see how they will disrupt proceedings of whatever kind.”
He granted a protective costs order in this case.
HMCTS filed two witness statements: one was that of Ms Dale, to which I have already referred; the other was of HMCTS's Director of Operations at a national level, Mr Guy Tomkins. He stated:
“I am aware of the etiquette and/or practices that are adopted in Crown Court Centres across the jurisdiction of England and Wales in relation to movement into and around courtrooms during certain important or formal parts of criminal proceedings. I understand that the picture is broadly as follows.
Whilst the precise details may vary, the general approach is that at important or formal parts of criminal proceedings, there should be no distraction in the court room caused by members of the public moving around. In a significant number of Crown Courts, as a matter of routine an usher is placed by the door to prevent or deter entry and exit. Alternatively this may be done by way of a sign indicating no entry.
The approach varies between courts. Many do not adopt the practice routinely. Some courts adopt a more flexible approach of an usher being stationed by the door on the direction of a judge in a particular case. Further, there is variation in the points in proceedings to which it is applied, but it particularly includes arraignment, taking of oaths, summing-up, verdict, judgment and sentencing.
I understand that the reasons why courts adopt this practice include the following:
a. To avoid distracting the jury and/or judge during important points in the proceedings when particular concentration is required;
b. To avoid distractions during sensitive moments in the proceedings where it is of paramount importance that the defendant and those in the public gallery (which may include family members and victims) can focus on and hear what the judge is saying;
c. To prevent distractions and disturbances which would be detrimental to the dignity and solemnity of proceedings;
d. In the interests of the proper administration of justice, which could be harmed by such distractions and disturbances.”
Ms Dale stated:
“As far as I am aware, it is the practice in all London courts for the Usher to stand at the door when the Defendant is being arraigned, a verdict is being taken and when a sentence or judgment is being passed. All court staff, members of the Bar, journalists and members of the public have always respected this and this is the first time it has ever been an issue in my experience.
Ultimately, the Judge is in charge of his/her courtroom and decisions to exclude or prevent someone from entering a courtroom are taken based on the court etiquette set out above. If not acting in pursuance of this practice, court staff would only take a decision to exclude or prevent someone from either entering the building or a courtroom with authority from very Senior Managers after consultation. Court-based managers may have to take such decisions if someone has been or is being abusive, violent or is intoxicated.
Courtroom doors are heavy, wide and situated in direct view of the Judge, witnesses and the Jury and close to the dock. Whenever a person opens the door to enter, no one in court can avoid hearing and/or seeing the doors open and consequently looking at the door thus causing a distraction.
At both my courts [Harrow and Isleworth] the Judges expect the Usher to be standing at the door and they have brought it to my attention if this...
To continue reading
Request your trial