[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> HM Attorney General v Willett [2006] EWHC 2849 (Admin) (02 November 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/2849.html Cite as: [2006] EWHC 2849 (Admin)

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2
		2nd November 2006

1. LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: This is an application by the Attorney General for a civil proceedings order under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981.
2. The first matter that needs to be dealt with is the defendant's request that these proceedings be transferred to the Torquay and Newton Abbot County Court. We have considered that application with some care because, where a draconian order such as the one asked for by the Attorney General faces a defendant such as Mr Willet, it is clearly preferable that he himself is able to participate in the proceedings. We are quite satisfied, however, that it would be inappropriate to transfer these proceedings to the County Court. These proceedings should remain in the High Court. If video link facilities could have been made available for the defendant, that would have been, in my judgment, a sensible solution to Mr Willet's problem in relation to traveling up to London to be present here in the Royal Courts of Justice; and I would have been prepared to see how we could have ensured his participation by way of video link. He himself, unfortunately, does not consider that to be an appropriate solution, as he has set out in his letter of 14th September. Since that is not a course which he is prepared to take, it seems to me that unhappily, certainly for the moment, these proceedings should proceed here in London.
3. Turning to the application itself, the present position is that the applicant is subject to an extended civil restraint order which was made on 30th September 2005 and would expire, accordingly, on 30th September 2007. On the basis of the material at present before the court, it appears as though that order has had its effect in relation to the bringing of proceedings. In those circumstances, it seemed to the court appropriate to indicate that, so long as that remains the position, it may be more appropriate for these proceedings to be stood out from today and be brought back before this court before the end of the summer term when the question as to whether or not it would be, at the end of the extended civil restraint order, more appropriate for a section 42 order to be made or the matter to be dealt with in some other way. For the purposes of that hearing, clearly it would be right for both the Attorney General and the defendant to put forward any material which they consider appropriate to enable the court to answer that question, in particular any material which arises in the intervening period.
4. I will repeat my indication that, if it were possible and Mr Willet were willing to take advantage of it, Mr Willet should be able to participate in that hearing by means of a video link if it remains his view that he cannot attend here in London. He should be under no illusion but that this court considers that a video link is a proper method whereby a litigant can participate in proceedings and could not give rise to any justifiable complaint that he was being precluded from making his points in person to the court as then constituted.
5. I accordingly have no doubt that we should stand these proceedings out on that basis for the moment but there will clearly be liberty to apply to both sides in case there is a change of circumstance which could justify this court taking a different course between now and the envisaged hearing in or about July.
6. MR JUSTICE FULFORD: I agree.
7. LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: I am very grateful Mr Kovats. I am very grateful to those behind you. It is clearly a matter of great concern to us, as it will be to you, that there is, or could be, harassment of either of the judges or the staff at the County Court, which I suspect in many ways is behind what the Attorney General was seeking to ask the court to do today. The difficulty is, of course, that a section 42 order only bites on proceedings. If it is considered that he is making a nuisance of himself without overstepping the mark in that respect then it may be that another form of order might have to be considered, which would be by way of injunctive relief. But I say no more about that at the moment because we do not know the full picture as to how much harassment in fact is being suffered by those at the court centre; but I did not want those behind you to leave without appreciating that we understand what is likely to have been behind this application.
8. MR KOVATS: My Lord, thank you for that.
9. LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: Thank you.