The King (on the application of Director of Public Prosecutions) v Manchester City Magistrates' Court
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Fordham J,Mr Justice Fordham,Lord Justice Popplewell |
| Judgment Date | 30 January 2024 |
| Neutral Citation | [2024] EWHC 111 (Admin) |
| Court | King's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/763/2023 |
and
[2024] EWHC 111 (Admin)
Lord Justice Popplewell
Mr Justice Fordham
Case No: CO/763/2023
AC-2022-LON-000887
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
DIVISIONAL COURT
Tom Little KC and James Boyd (on costs), and David Perry KC and Victoria Ailes (on certification) (instructed by CPS), for the Claimant
Tom Wainwright and Elena Papamichael (instructed by Kellys Solicitors) for the First Interested Party
Owen Greenhall and Mira Hammad (instructed by Robert Lizar Solicitors) for the Second Interested Party
Determination on the Papers
Approved Judgment (Consequential Matters)
I direct that no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
Fordham J Mr Justice Fordham This is a sequel judgment to [2023] EWHC 2938 (Admin) (the Main Judgment). It deals with consequential matters, following helpful written submissions filed by all parties in accordance with the timetable we laid down. There are three topics. No oral hearing is requested or needed. First, I would grant the application by the Claimant to certify the following point of law: “Is a Magistrates' Court, when trying a person accused of an offence contrary to section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 in circumstances where rights under Article 10 and/or 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights are engaged, required to conduct a fact-sensitive proportionality assessment?” The statutory conditions are met: (i) this is a point of law; (ii) it is of general public importance; and (iii) it is involved in the decision.
Secondly, I would refuse the Claimant's application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Mr Perry KC and Ms Ailes for the Claimant realistically recognise that, generally, it will be the Supreme Court who should consider whether the certified point is one which ought to be considered by that Court. But I see other powerful reasons to refuse leave to appeal. I do not accept that the cases are “in tension with each other”. The important premise of the certified point of law is that the Convention rights, in an individual case, are “engaged”. The Claimant accepts that the ingredients of the statutory offence “and of the defence” must “properly safeguard” those Convention rights. That must mean safeguarding in the individual case. No safeguarding test, other than the proportionality question, is put forward.
Thirdly, I would grant the Interested Parties' applications for costs of the judicial review proceedings, exercising the discretion pursuant to s.51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 s.51. There are exceptional circumstances, taking this case out of the usual run of criminal causes or matters, and justifying the application of the civil costs regime. I cannot accept the submission of Mr Little KC and Mr Boyd for the Claimant that there was “nothing about the present case which took it out of the run of criminal causes or...
To continue reading
Request your trial