[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 >> Lane v Gloucester Magistrates Court [2006] EWHC 3198 (Admin) (28 November 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/3198.html Cite as: [2006] EWHC 3198 (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
		28th November 2006

1. LORD JUSTICE KEENE: On 3rd July 2006, Mr Edward Anthony Lane appeared before Deputy District Judge Hine at Gloucester Magistrates' Court for what was listed, it is said, as an abuse of process argument concerning a charge against Mr Lane of a motoring offence. A pre-trial review was to follow if the abuse argument failed. It did fail and the court then moved to commence the pre-trial review stage. As a result of what then happened, Mr Lane was warned by the judge about possible contempt of court and about the court's powers under section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 ("the 1981 Act"). Eventually the judge committed Mr Lane to prison for seven days for contempt.
2. Later in the afternoon, according to a note we have from the judge, the judge caused Mr Lane to be brought back up into court and enquired whether he was willing to apologise. He was not, and the judge decided that the committal for seven days should stand.
3. It is clear from the court records that Mr Lane was committed under section 12(2) of the 1981 Act. That provides a power to the court to commit someone for contempt if the contempt falls within the terms of subsection (1) of that section. That subsection gives a Magistrates' Court the power to deal, by way of contempt, with any person who "wilfully insults the Justice or Justices, any witness before, or officer of, the court". I need not read the remainder of that provision. It is also a contempt under that same section to wilfully interrupt the proceedings of the Magistrates' Court or to otherwise misbehave in court.
4. Subsequently, on 24th July, Mr Lane filed an Appellant's Notice at the Administrative Court Office here in the Royal Courts of Justice. He was acting in person, as he has done this afternoon. He now makes various allegations about being assaulted by police officers in the cells and about his inability to hear properly during the proceedings. I shall come to those in a moment.
5. The Administrative Court office wrote to Mr Lane on 22nd November, almost a week ago, pointing out that the right of appeal against orders made under section 12 of the 1981 Act consists of a right of appeal to the Crown Court under section 108 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, not to this court. That is indeed the position. Section 12(5) of the 1981 Act states that section 108 applies to an order under section 12 and in its turn section 108 creates a right of appeal to the Crown Court. No right of appeal to this court, whether by case stated or in any other form, is created. However, what is possible in these circumstances is to seek permission to begin judicial review proceedings. They are not excluded by any statutory provision. Judicial review may lie if something has gone wrong with the decision-making process, but, as we have explained to Mr Lane this afternoon, it does not provide a means of challenging a decision on its merits which appears to form at least part of what Mr Lane seeks.
6. Having explained that to Mr Lane, we gave him the option of, in effect, abandoning his appeal and seeking legal advice about whether he should seek permission to bring proceedings for judicial review or whether he would like us to treat the papers in this case as amounting to an application for permission to bring judicial review proceedings. He opted for the latter and the court has agreed that it would indeed therefore treat the documents in this case as amounting to an application for permission to bring judicial review. We proceed, therefore, to deal with the matter on that footing.
7. The grounds, of course, for seeking judicial review are more limited than those available in a normal appeal case. Seeking to analyse what Mr Lane has said to us this afternoon, there seem to me to be two main bases on which he puts his current application. The first one is that he had difficulty in hearing adequately during the proceedings in the Magistrates' Court and that as a result he did not know why he had in due course been put in the cells. He, I should say, queries the account of events that we have been given by the Deputy District Judge in a statement and by the Assistant Clerk in a statement, because he points out that the Assistant Clerk seems to have thought that he, Mr Lane, was originally wearing a jacket and tie whereas it is clear from the DVD which we have seen, taken at the cells, that certainly by that stage Mr Lane was not wearing a jacket or tie. Consequently, it is said that the powers of recollection of the Assistant Clerk cannot be relied upon.
8. In any event, Mr Lane accepts that he in the course of the proceedings accused the clerk of being a liar. He regarded that as being a fact and that essentially was why he was not prepared to apologise for it. The other ground upon which Mr Lane, in effect, seeks judicial review is that of perversity; that is to say that no reasonable court could have come to the conclusion that he was in contempt. That in turn means that no reasonable court could have found that the terms of section 12(1) were satisfied; that is to say it could not have found that he wilfully insulted an officer of the court. He points out that the judge never asked why he had called the clerk a liar.
9. The information which is before the court from the Deputy District Judge and the Assistant Clerk is broadly along the same lines. In both cases it indicates that there were warnings given to Mr Lane about what had happened and about the risk of him being cited for contempt. The Deputy District Judge says that he retired at one point so that the Assistant Clerk could explain the position to Mr Lane and to give him a chance to calm down, but he could hear from his own retiring room Mr Lane calling the Assistant Clerk a liar again. The judge said he came back into court, again warned Mr Lane about his conduct, particularly in relation to what he had just heard, and warned him about the powers which he the judge possessed under section 12 of the 1981 Act. Mr Lane became agitated again, refused to allow the judge to speak and repeated again that the Assistant Clerk was a liar. Ultimately, Mr Lane was committed to prison for seven days and, as I said at the outset, was subsequently brought up from the cells to be given an opportunity to apologise or to ask to see a solicitor. Neither opportunity was taken.
10. This court has had the advantage of seeing a DVD produced to us by Mr Lane which runs for just over seven minutes and which shows what happened down in the cells when Mr Lane was taken down there, it seems, initially. This is simply a DVD compiled from the camera which is kept in the custody suite. What is clear from that DVD is that at this time Mr Lane was taken to the cell in something of a temper. I suspect he would agree that he was angry. Certainly one can see from that DVD that he was shouting and banging the desk in the custody suite, swearing at the female custody sergeant and at one point actually threatening her. He can be heard saying very loudly, referring presumably to the Assistant Clerk, "He is a lying bastard". Mr Lane did not respond to very calm requests from the custody sergeant and others to listen and to calm down.
11. The DVD is something which I am bound to say I find illuminating, because it seems to indicate the general mood in which Mr Lane was on this particular afternoon. It does show, I should say, that at one point Mr Lane is being physically handled by the police officers who get him into the cell. In my judgment, it does not show those officers using any more force than reasonably necessary in the circumstances.
12. With that background, I come to the way in which Mr Lane advances his arguments. As I have indicated, it is perfectly clear as a matter of fact, and not denied, that he did call an officer of the court a liar. I can accept the evidence that appears from the Deputy District Judge, given all the circumstances to which I have referred, that he almost certainly used that expression more than once. He seeks to justify it this afternoon by saying "Well, that was a fact". The reality is that there are much more courteous ways of seeking to disagree with a version of events being put forward by a clerk of the court. One does not need to accuse that person of being a deliberate liar and I am satisfied that that amounted to an insult.
13. Were there defects in the procedures which took place here? I accept entirely that Mr Lane has some hearing difficulties. It may well be that there were problems at times during this hearing but I am satisfied, particularly from the evidence of the Deputy District Judge and Assistant Clerk, that Mr Lane was well aware of what was being said to him and was well aware of the warnings he was being given about possible contempt. Those warnings were given more than once, as I have indicated already, and it simply does not seem credible to me that Mr Lane was in ignorance of them. It may be that he had difficulty in understanding why it was that he had been committed to seven days custodial. That does not, to my mind, demonstrate that there was any defect in the procedure. The fault there may lie more on Mr Lane's part than on those of the court. Certainly I can see no defective procedure in this particular case.
14. All that leaves in the issue of perversity. That seems to me to be a complete non-starter. As I have indicated, given the expressions Mr Lane was using, it was certainly well open to any reasonable judge to conclude that the terms of section 12 here were satisfied. In those circumstances, I can see no prospect at all of a successful application for judicial review and it follows that for my part I would not be prepared to grant permission to seek judicial review. Having said that, I would pay tribute to Mr Lane for the calm and very courteous way in which he has conducted proceedings this afternoon, but that has not always been the case.
15. MR JUSTICE WALKER: I agree. I add only this. This court has now examined the documentary record. It has viewed the video. The conclusion of this court is that there is no basis upon which to apply for judicial review. Certainly I, for my part, am satisfied that the matters that Mr Lane complains of do not in law give him an arguable basis to seek to overturn the decision of the judge. I can well understand that Mr Lane feels upset about what happened. It is time now, however, to put that behind him. What happened that day is now water under the bridge. For the reasons given by my Lord, I would refuse this application for permission to apply for judicial review.
16. LORD JUSTICE KEENE: Thank you, Mr Lane. That is the end of the road, I am afraid. I hope you still get your licence.
17. MR LANE: Could I ask for a copy of the transcript, my Lord?
18. LORD JUSTICE KEENE: Normally you have to pay for it. Is there any reason it should be met out of public funds? You can certainly have a copy of it but normally you have to apply for it and pay for it. Do you want to tell us anything about your income?
19. MR LANE: I am semi-retired. I do not own my own house, I live with my son. I do not drink, I do not smoke.
20. LORD JUSTICE KEENE: You are still driving a taxi.
21. MR LANE: Rarely.
22. LORD JUSTICE KEENE: What are you making from that?
23. MR LANE: £200.
24. LORD JUSTICE KEENE: A week?
25. MR LANE: Yes.
26. LORD JUSTICE KEENE: Yes, Mr Lane, we will direct that you get a copy of the transcript out of public funds.
27. MR LANE: Thank you.