[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Robinson, R (on the application of) v Hackney Education Department [2001] EWCA Civ 1014 (18 June 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1014.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 1014

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(Mr Justice Turner)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Monday, 18th June 2001

Monday, 18th June 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE KEENE: On this application Mr Kort Robinson seeks permission to appeal against the refusal by Turner J of permission to bring proceedings for judicial review. What the applicant wishes to do is to challenge by judicial review the decision on or about 23rd June 1997 by the Chair of the Governors of Tyssen Primary School within the London Borough of Hackney to ban him from entering that school for a period of one month, namely July 1997. The applicant's daughters attend the school in question. One of the grounds on which Turner J refused permission was that the application for judicial review was made only on 8th December 2000. Not only was that well outside the normal three months period under the rules for challenging a decision by way of judicial review, but it was also over two and a quarter years after the ban itself. The substance of Mr Robinson's complaint had come to an end. One is bound to ask, in those circumstances, whether any good reason has been advanced for extending time to the very substantial degree required in this case.
2. Mr Robinson, who has appeared on his own behalf this morning and argued his case with conviction and brevity, says that he was not aware of judicial review procedures at the time when he consulted solicitors. In due course they advised against it. He seeks, as he tells me, to have his day in court. I have to say that I do not regard this as a reason for extending time. The three months time limit in judicial review is very important because it seeks to achieve finality in administrative and public law decisions. Citizens with a grievance should seek legal advice on what they should do. They should seek that advice with some dispatch. In the present case the fact that the ban, which is the substance of the complaint which Mr Robinson has, ended years ago is a further reason for this court not exercising its discretion to extend time. I would only add that, on the merits of the matter, I can see no real prospect of a successful appeal.
3. Mr Robinson raises the issue of his human rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights: the right to a fair trial. Of course the Human Rights Act 1998 was not in force at the time of the decision which it is sought to challenge. But, looking at it more broadly, while Mr Robinson argues that he did not have a fair hearing when he appealed to the Governors, I can see nothing in the evidence before me to support that contention. There is nothing unfair in there being an appeal process involving the school Governors. That is a common feature of these processes.
4. The applicant was given the opportunity to make representations to the Governors. It is said by Mr Robinson that he was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, as one might term them, for the other side. That I do not regard as an unfair procedure. A hearing of this kind is intended to be informal and not to have to observe all the formalities that one would find in a court of law whether in criminal procedures or civil litigation. A school is entitled to exclude parent from the premises where it concludes that there is a case to do so. Given the history of events in this case its decision cannot be said to have been perverse.
5. Finally, Mr Robinson complains that he did not have the respondent's schedule of costs much in advance of the hearing. What happened was that Turner J awarded costs against him and gave a summary assessment of the costs based upon the schedule of costs submitted by the respondent. Mr Robinson also raises a number of individual points on the schedule. I have read the transcript of Turner J's decision, not only on the substance of the application for judicial review, but also in respect of the argument about the costs. It is quite clear that the judge scrutinised the respondent's schedule of costs very carefully. Indeed he refused the total claimed by them quite substantially. I can see no basis for a successful appeal in relation to costs.
6. In all those circumstances it must follow that this application will be refused. But I am grateful to Mr Robinson for the courteous way in which he has conducted his case today.
Order: Application refused.