C/1313/4114/A
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWCA Civ 1388
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE                            
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM BIRMINGHAM MAGISTRATES COURT
(SIR OLIVER POPPLEWELL AND MASTER VENNE)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL

Friday 30 August 2002
B e f o r e:

LORD JUSTICE TUCKEY

- - - - - -

T H E   Q U E E N
(ON THE APPLICATION OF ROY CLARKE)
Applicant/Claimant

- v -

BIRMINGHAM MAGISTRATES COURT
Defendant/Respondent
- - - - - -
(Computer Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street,
London EC4A 2AG
Tel: 020 7421 4040  Fax: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - -

There was not attendance and no representation.

- - - - - -

J U D G M E N T
1.	LORD JUSTICE TUCKEY: This case was listed for hearing today, “Not Before 11.30am”. It is now 11.35 and there is no sign of Mr Roy Clarke, the applicant. 
2.	On 17 August 2002 the applicant wrote to the court saying that he had received notification of today's hearing and asked for it to be dealt with on paper. He said he did not think there was anything he could usefully add to his written statements and other submissions. He also stated that a 10am hearing would be impractical as he would be travelling from Birmingham. In the light of that letter, I decided that today's oral hearing would take place, but should be listed to be heard not before 11.30am to give Mr Clarke ample time to travel from Birmingham and present his case if he so wished. He has obviously chosen not to do so. 
3.	I will therefore proceed to deal with the case in his absence. 
4.	In proceedings commenced on 12 October 2001 in the Administrative Court, the applicant sought a judicial review of a decision of the Birmingham Magistrates' Court made on 26 July 2001 following his arrest that day on ten warrants for non-payment of fines (totalling over £1200) imposed for a variety of motoring offences at the hearing. On 26 July 2001 the applicant admitted liability for one of the fines but denied the others on the ground that he was not guilty of the offences for which they were imposed. He asked the magistrates to direct that the charges should be retried. It was their refusal to do so which was the subject of the judicial review proceedings. The magistrates simply adjourned the enforcement proceedings to enable the applicant to deal with them. His applications for permission to apply for judicial review of the magistrates' decision was refused on paper by Sir Oliver Popplewell and on renewal by the Divisional Court on 22 May 2002. At that hearing Mr Clarke appeared in person. 
5.	By his notice of appeal to this court, the applicant seeks to appeal the Divisional Court's decision. In a letter of 12 July 2002, the applicant was told by the Civil Appeals Office: 
“The papers have been referred to Master Venne, Head of the Civil Appeals Office, who has directed that, concerning as they do the enforcement of fines for driving offences, these proceedings are criminal and not civil and therefore the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) has no jurisdiction to deal with your application. By section 18(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 no appeal lies to the Court of Appeal Civil Division from any judgment of the High Court. Accordingly your file will be closed and this matter will proceed no further in this court.” 
6.	The applicant challenged this view in a letter and statement received by this court on 18 July 2002, which has been treated as a request for a reconsideration of Master Venne's decision under CPR 52.16(6)(b). 
7.	Under section 18(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, in considering whether the judgment of the Divisional Court was “in any criminal cause or matter” it is the order which is under review which has to be considered (Carr v Atkins [1987] 1 QB 963). That is the decision of the Birmingham Magistrates' Court not to order a re‑trial of the criminal charges for which the fines had been imposed but to adjourn the enforcement proceedings to recover payment of those fines. This was evidently a decision made in a criminal cause or matter. 
8.	Mr Clarke submits that a criminal cause or matter is one which originates in the Crown Court or the High Court. This is obviously incorrect. Magistrates courts hear criminal cases all the time and motoring offences are criminal cases. In certain circumstances magistrates' decisions can be reviewed by the Divisional Court either on judicial review or by way of case stated. Normally, however, appeals from magistrates in criminal cases go to the Crown Court. The fact that the Divisional Court had jurisdiction to hear the applicant's application does not mean that the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from that court in a criminal cause or matter. In such cases, appeal lies only to the House of Lords. 
9.	For these reasons, Master Venne correctly concluded that this court had no jurisdiction to hear the applicant's proposed appeal. On reconsideration of his decision, I confirm it.