Judicial Review

Execution Of Duty

Pegram v DPP [2019] EWHC 2673 (Admin); [2020] Crim. L.R. 244; [2020] A.C.D. 2

An important case stated on the scope of “in the execution of duty” of a police officer and the duty to leave self-defence to the tribunal of fact.


Secondary Ticketing

Worldwide Tickets Ltd v North Yorkshire CC [2019] 4 WLUK 418

Ben Douglas-Jones QC acted for the four appellants in the first secondary ticketing s.90 Consumer Rights Act 2015 appeals before the President of the FTT General Regulatory Chamber.  He raised procedural impropriety and the four appeals succeeded paving the way to concessions that the penalties imposed in other cases were not safe, due to procedural manipulation by the enforcement authority.  The penalties were also found (technically given that the appeals succeeded) to breach natural justice.


Irrationality In The Context Of The Prosecutorial Decision

R. (on the application of Purvis) v DPP [2018] EWHC 1844 (Admin); [2018] 4 W.L.R. 118; [2018] 2 Cr. App. R. 34; [2018] A.C.D. 104 

The Crown Prosecution Service's decision not to prosecute a police officer for perjury, misconduct in public office, and attempting to pervert the course of justice was irrational. The decision-maker had not addressed the seriousness of the offences or the need to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of decisions to prosecute police officers, and had placed too much weight on what sanction the officer might suffer in disciplinary proceedings.


Important case on irrationality in the context of the prosecutorial decision.  CPS guidance indicated that where the evidential test was met, a prosecution would usually be brought absent public interest factors tending otherwise in the case of a police officer who had prima facie committed perjury, misconduct in public office, and attempting to pervert the course of justice.  The reviewing lawyer had erred by rejecting the possibility of a successful prosecution for the offence, which could be committed even if the accused's motive was to achieve what he believed was a just result. 


Refusal To State A Case

R. (on the application of Arthur) v Blackfriars Crown Court [2017] EWHC 3416 (Admin); [2018] 2 Cr. App. R. 4; [2018] Crim. L.R. 475 

Case concerning the giving of reasons when refusing to state a case.  In a JR of a refusal to state a case, it was held: when refusing to state a case, the court had to serve notice of its decision and written reasons. That had been done in the instant case. It would be helpful if the Criminal Rules Procedure Committee formulated guidance about the formalities relating to such reasons according to the constitution of the bench responsible for the decision. However, any court which declined to state a case had to provide reasons. They did not have to be elaborate, but had to be sufficient for the reasoning to be understood. In any event the interested party, the DPP, was content to proceed on the basis of the appeal judgment and to disregard the note (see paras 10-11 of judgment).


Procedual Unfairness

R. (on the application of Gatenby) v Newton Ayecliffe Magistrates' Court  [2017] EWHC 3772 (Admin); [2017] 12 WLUK 34

Case concerning procedural unfairness when explaining the law govering sentencing procedure.


Power To Suspend Driving Licences

Reigate and Banstead BC v Pawlowski [2017] EWHC 1764 (Admin); [2018] P.T.S.R. 1; [2017] 7 WLUK 246; [2018] R.T.R. 10; [2017] L.L.R. 875 

Leading case concerning the power to suspend a private hire vehicle driver’s licence and costs in relevant appeals.  Ben Douglas-Jones QC appeared for the driver in this case and clarified the law on when people are fit and proper persons to hold a licence, when licences should be suspended and costs sanctions in such appeals.


Delay In Appeals

R. (on the application of Khalif) v Isleworth Crown Court Divisional Court [2015] EWHC 917 (Admin)

A leading case on delay in appeals brought to the Crown Court via the CCRC and section 2(1) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Act 2004).


Special reasons in an emergency 

Key v CPS

Administrative Court 24 January 2013.  Ben successfully persuaded the Administrative Court that the court below had applied the appropriate test for special reasons in an emergency.


Adverse Inferences

RS v DPP [2013] EWHC 322 (Admin). 

Ben successfully represented the DPP in this case, demonstrating that there had been no failure of the court below to apply the requisite legal test before an adverse inference from silence is drawn.


Rebuttable Presumption In Driving Cases Where A Notice Of Intended Prosecution Is Needed

Hall v DPP  [22 January 2013]. 

Ben won this case by persuading the High Court that where a notice of intended prosecution is needed in a driving case, there is a rebuttable presumption that one has been served on the defendant.


Appropriate Test For Adjournment Where Case Will Proceed In D’s Absence / Case Management

R (on the application of Drinkwater) v Solihull Magistrates' Court [2012] EWHC (Admin) (President of the QBD and Beatson J).

The appropriate test for an adjournment in the Magistrates' Court is Jones and not Picton where such an adjournment will lead to the trial continuing in the absence of D.


Illegal Removal From Office

Inspector W v Public Service Commission [2011 - 2012]

High Court of Grenada. Ben was instructed to advise a police officer where the Grenadian PSC has allegedly contrived circumstances to assign him to a post outside the Grenadian Police Service.


No Legitimate Expectation Where Ruling Concerning Sentence Perverse 

R (on the application of C) v Stratford Magistrates' Court [2012] EWHC 154 (Admin); 2012 WL 14674.

Ben persuaded the High Court that a District Judge had been right to overrule a decision of justices concerning the non-custodial scope of a pre-sentence report. The case provides authority that JR proceedings may be brought before sentence where the sentence might be greater than that indicated by a Magistrates' Court when ordering a PSR.


Judicial Review Of A Decision To Offer No Evidence

R (Rivett)v Attorney General, DPP, Legal Services Ombudsman, the Solicitors' Regulation Authority and Hatch Brenner LLP [2011]

Counsel for the DPP in successful dismissal of claim for Judicial Review by a solicitor against whom the CPS had offered no evidence in criminal proceedings.

Judicial Review Of A Decision To Prefer Fresh Charges

R (Saleh) v Redbridge Magistrates' Court and DPP [2011]

Counsel for the DPP in application for leave to seek JR concerning a decision to lay fresh charges.


Arrest for failure to provide personal details to Police 

R (Ross and Tuthill) v Newark Magistrates' Court and CPS [2011]

Counsel for the CPS in successful dismissal of claim to proceed to JR in relation to hunt-saboteurs arrested and charged on the basis of their failure to provide personal details on request by the Police.