CO/8010/2005 
Neutral Citation Number: [2006] EWHC 900 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION  
DIVISIONAL COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand
London WC2 

Friday, 31st March 2006
 
B E F O R E:

LORD JUSTICE LATHAM 

MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT 
 
- - - - - - -

LAING
(CLAIMANT)
-v- 

THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE
(DEFENDANT) 
 - - - - - - -
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
 - - - - - - -
THE CLAIMANT DID NOT APPEAR AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED 
THE DEFENDANT DID NOT APPEAR AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED 
 
- - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
1.	LORD JUSTICE LATHAM:  This application for permission to apply for judicial review is renewed to this court after refusal on paper by Claire Montgomery QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge.  The applicant does not appear today, but has written to the court explaining that he wishes the matter to be reconsidered in his absence and on the papers.  
2.	The application for judicial review relates to the decision of the first and second defendants not to investigate a complaint by him in relation to the conduct of a prosecution which was brought against him and which ended in his acquittal on the direction of a judge, who ruled that there was no case to answer.  His complaint was that he had been prosecuted essentially maliciously and for no reasonable cause.  
3.	He had brought proceedings in the Manchester County Court against the police in respect of their behaviour in relation to the original arrest and prosecution, and as a result the defendants indicated that they would not deal with the investigation until those County Court proceedings had been concluded.  He applied to this court on the basis that that decision was irrational.  Not surprisingly, Ms Montgomery QC concluded that that was a perfectly permissible stance for the relevant authorities to take in the light of the ongoing proceedings in the County Court, and it was on that basis that she refused permission.  
4.	In my judgment, her decision was absolutely correct on the facts at the time that is relevant to these proceedings, namely the time when the defendants first declined to investigate his complaint.  Accordingly, permission for judicial review, in my judgment, should be refused.  
5.	However, it should be noted that, together with the letter in which the applicant indicated that he would not be attending, is the order of the County Court in those proceedings, and it is clear that the applicant's claims in those proceedings were dismissed and permission to appeal was refused.  We are not told by the applicant whether he is intending to renew his application for permission to the Court of Appeal, but the position if he does not do so is that, of course, the original reason for not dealing with his complaint is no longer extant and accordingly it may well be that he will find that his complaint is now investigated in accordance with his request, and if the defendants refuse to continue to investigate, he may be entitled to have that decision reviewed depending on the basis upon which the defendants have made their stance.  
6.	I would accordingly refuse permission.  
7.	MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT:  I agree.