R v Highbury Corner Magistrates and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR. JUSTICE CAZALET |
| Judgment Date | 31 July 1995 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1995] EWHC J0731-1 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO-78295 |
| Date | 31 July 1995 |
[1995] EWHC J0731-1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Before: Mr. Justice Cazalet
CO-78295
MISS ANNE GIBBERD (Instructed by McCormacks, 122 Mile End Road, London, E1 HUN) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented.
( )
I propose to refer to the applicant herein as G. R. and I direct that no part of this judgment shall be reported which is capable of leading to the identification of any of the children of G. R.
The Applicant, G. R., renews his application for leave to apply for Judicial Review, leave having been refused in writing by the Single Judge.
The Applicant seeks to quash by Certiorari an Order made on 14 December 1994 by the Highbury Corner Justices whereby the Justices dismissed applications by the Applicant to vary an earlier maintenance Order and to remit arrears which had arisen thereunder. By an Order made on 16 October 1981, the Applicant was adjudged to be the father of a child C and was ordered to pay the sum of £4 per week for the maintenance and education of the child until the child should attain the age of 17 years. There then followed over the years a number of successful applications by the Mother of the child to increase the amount of the Order. On 30 October 1991 the Order was increased to the sum of £12 per week. On 16 September 1993 the duration of the Order was extended until the child ceased full time education.
It is not in dispute that the child continues in full time education. Further it is not in dispute that when, on 1 November 1994, the Clerk to the Highbury Corner Magistrates Court issued a Summons for enforcement of arrears, the arrears then outstanding and which had risen since the making of the original Order of 16 October 1981 amounted to £670.21. Following the issue of the Enforcement Summons by the Court the Applicant applied (1) to vary downwards the amount of the Order and (2) for all the arrears which had arisen under the original Order to be remitted.
On 14 December 1994 the Justices heard the Enforcement Summons and the applications made by the Applicant. As I have indicated they dismissed the Applicant's applications and made an Order that he continue to pay £12 per week as provided by the original Order as varied, plus a further sum of £4 per week off the arrears, making the total amount to be paid by him at £16 per week.
The Applicant instructed his solicitors to appeal. An appeal was lodged by them with the Inner London Crown Court on 5 January 1995 and was listed for hearing on 7 March 1995. On Counsel's advice the hearing was vacated in the Crown Court and the appeal withdrawn on the basis, as indeed was the position, that the Crown Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The Applicant now seeks leave to apply for Judicial Review of the Justices' decision.
The decision of the Justices to decline to vary the original Order or to remit any of the outstanding arrears does not fall within the provisions of Section 8 of the Affiliation Proceedings Act 1957 and cannot be appealed to the Crown Court. Furthermore, because there is no specific statutory provision for an appeal in respect of the particular Orders made by the Justices in the present case, any such appeal must be brought by way of case stated pursuant to the provisions of Section 111 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. Pursuant to Section 111(1) appeals by way of case stated can only be brought on the grounds of error of law or excess of jurisdiction.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 111(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, any application to the Justices to state a case has to be made within 21 days of the relevant decision. There is no power to extend the time for an application to state a case (see Michael v Gowland [1977] 2 AER, 328). Accordingly, and because the Applicant is out of time in applying for a case to be stated, the only way in which he can now seek to challenge the Order of the Justices is by an application for Judicial Review.
I have before me an Affidavit sworn to by the Applicant on 13 March 1995. This sets...
To continue reading
Request your trial