David George Beckett v Criminal Cases Review Commission

This is an application made by Mr Beckett pursuant to CPR 52.24(5) to review the order of Master Bancroft-Rimmer dated 18 March 2025, which was sealed on 19 March 2025, dismissing Mr Beckett’s application for permission to appeal, with costs, because
Mr Beckett had not complied with the Court’s direction to file a bundle.

It is necessary to say a little by way of background. Mr Beckett has described himself as a former middle-ranking police officer and very senior citizen. He was convicted in the Magistrates’ Court in Sheffield of common assault, which he said was a wrongful conviction. He appealed to the Crown Court at Sheffield which dismissed the appeal on 11 May 2012. It is apparent from the information that I have been able to discern, that the applicant was sentenced to a community order. Mr Beckett contends that the proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court and then the Crown Court were nullities and should be set aside as ex debito justitiae, he puts it.

Mr Beckett sought to have his case referred back to the Crown Court by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. On 16 July 2013, the CCRC refused to refer the case back. A further application was rejected on 11 August 2016.

Over four years after the proceedings in the Sheffield Crown Court, the applicant wrote again by a letter dated 10 July 2017, and the CCRC responded by letter dated 18 July 2017. The case was not referred back, and he challenged inaction and failure to refer the case back.

Nicol J, in proceedings before the Administrative Court, noted that the claim was against the CCRC, with the Crown Court at Sheffield and Yorkshire and Humber Crown Prosecution Service as interested parties. A transcript of the judgment given by Nicol J was obtained. Master Bancroft-Rimmer had directed the applicant, Mr Beckett, to file a compliant core bundle. Practice Direction 52C at paragraph 27 requires as a bundle of documents, a core bundle for permission to appeal. Subject to any direction made by the Court, the applicant must lodge a core bundle containing only those documents considered to be relevant in a core bundle index, accessible on the Court of Appeal website, and then further information is given about what is required.

It was apparent that no bundle had been filed. It seems, from what Mr Beckett told me today, and there have been hints of this complaint in earlier emails that I have seen, that the court had written to him saying that attempts would be made to get the bundle from the Administrative Court. Then, partly because the Administrative Court does not keep documents for any length of time, or because they have been lost, Mr Beckett was informed that it was not possible to obtain a bundle from the Court. That gave rise to the further orders.

Mr Beckett has taken it upon himself to decide for himself what the Court needs. He has refused to provide a bundle. That led to Master Bancroft-Rimmer directing him to file a compliant core bundle. The matter was then the subject of further complaint by Mr Beckett, who has again repeated complaints that he has been treated very badly by the Court of Appeal and the staff, who do not answer the phone to him. It seems that one person who did not answer the phone was on their day off, however, Mr Beckett contends that the person should at least have picked it up and said, “I am on my day off.” I am not going into that, because Mr Beckett, it is clear, did not file a bundle.

Mr Beckett complained of Master Bancroft-Rimmer’s earlier order, and her order was then referred to me. I made an order on 30 January 2025 affirming the order to file a compliant core bundle but varying it so that the date by which the applicant should file the compliant core bundle should be extended to 21 February. That was to avoid a situation where this matter is not determined on the merits, which is what Mr Beckett says he wants it to be dealt with.

In my reasons for that order, I pointed out that I had read numerous emails from the applicant, who complained about the decisions made by the Court of Appeal offices. I had managed to locate an order made by Nicol J. I also had a copy of the transcript of the judgment given by Nicol J. However, I pointed out that it had taken far longer than it should have done, because I had to look at emails and attachments to emails, and that in order to determine fairly the application for permission to appeal, it was essential that a core bundle was provided. Notwithstanding that, Mr Beckett refused to provide a core bundle, and indeed, that seems to have been his attitude today. As it was, that led to Master Bancroft-Rimmer’s order, which was made on 18 March and sealed on
19 March.

In these circumstances, I then turn to deal with the well-known decision of Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906, [2014] 1 WLR 3926, about the reasons for procedural failure, its significance and whether in all the circumstances of the case, to consider whether I should grant relief to Mr Beckett.

So far as the seriousness and significance of the procedural failure is concerned, in my judgment, the failure to file a bundle, is a very significant and serious procedural failure because it has prevented the Court from making any fair determination of the application for permission to appeal. Mr Beckett may complain that the Court of Appeal has not been able to provide him justice, but that is only because he had not provided the Court of Appeal with a bundle. It was pointed out to him in my reasons that the Court did not have the relevant information. Mr Beckett has suggested that the Court ought to have the documents, but the reality is that the Court does not. Mr Beckett apparently has a lot of these documents but has not filed a bundle. Therefore, there is no way in which the Court can fairly determine his complaints.

As for whether there is any good reason for Mr Beckett not to provide a core bundle, I can see no good reason for it. Whatever may have been said in the past by the Court office, when it was said the Court would attempt to provide a bundle, that has been long overtaken by the reports back that in fact it has not been possible for the Court to produce a bundle to assist Mr Beckett. Mr Beckett was asked whether he would be producing a core bundle. His answer has always been no. Indeed, he has then in fact complained about the Court of Appeal’s decisions.

I turn then to all the circumstances of the case. Mr Beckett submitted that there was such a failure of justice at the Magistrates’ Court and the Crown Court that the proceedings amount to a nullity. I have not been provided with the transcripts. I have no bundle. Mr Beckett could have provided the Court with the material to put before me. I have only managed to locate Nicol J’s judgment, from which I have taken the information that I have. Mr Beckett has chosen not to produce the bundle that he was directed to do so.

I turn then to deal with a whole series of other points that he has made, including in his notes for a remote oral hearing.

The first point is that he is vulnerable. I am perfectly prepared to accept that Mr Beckett is old. He may be vulnerable, but he can email, he can produce notes for hearings, and there is no reason that he has advanced to show why he cannot produce a core bundle. Indeed, I can see no reason why he should not produce a core bundle.

He says that the validity of court orders are an issue and that is because on a seal there is reference to Her late Majesty, rather than His Majesty. It is said that the orders must be invalid. In fact validity is provided for by rules and orders of the Privy Council validating all previous stamps until they are replaced. I did also point out to
Mr Beckett, that, in fact, if my orders had not been valid, then he would have been in greater breach because he would have failed to comply with the earlier orders and directions that he had been given.

Mr Beckett asserts there are apparent attempts to hamper, obstruct, and sabotage his permission to appeal application. He seems to consider it sufficient to get permission to appeal simply to put in the application, and to demand it to be referred. A Lord Justice or Lady Justice of Appeal will grapple with the materials to try and come to the right and fair decision in relation to granting permission to appeal. Without the bundle, there is no possibility of doing so. There has been no obstruction of justice, other than perhaps
Mr Beckett’s refusal to provide a bundle, which means that his application cannot be determined.

He said there are unresolved issues as to what papers relating to permission to appeal are actually in my case file. This discloses a misunderstanding about case files. There is no case file. There is CE-File. That is the document system whereby materials are sent in, including, it was hoped, a bundle from Mr Beckett that could have been referred to a Lord or Lady Justice to determine. I attempted to search CE-file, spending a great deal of time, because I recognised that Mr Beckett was not producing documents, but it has been impossible, other than to get the summary of the case that I have given, to find out exactly what happened.

There is also a complaint about the Court of Appeal’s refusal to issue case management directions to the respondent and the interested parties. The answer is that there is no need to give any directions until permission to appeal has been granted, because otherwise it would lead to unnecessary costs.

Mr Beckett finishes by saying that the Court of Appeal’s inescapable duty is to see that justice is done and seen to be done. He referred to the judgment of the Administrative Court following a renewed application of permission to apply for judicial review. The judgment does not show any justiciable error. There is nothing that I can see which gives rise to grounds of appeal. The Court’s duty to see that justice is being done is being hampered by Mr Beckett himself who refuses to provide the bundle.

In oral submissions this afternoon, Mr Beckett has referred again to a note from the jurisdiction lawyer about getting the documents and saying once the grounds of appeal had been submitted, that he would refer the papers for decision. Whatever was said before, if there was an error, it has been put right by later directions requiring Mr Beckett to file the bundle, especially in circumstances where it has been impossible to get the documents.

Mr Beckett says that Master Bancroft-Rimmer and Master Meacher should have recused themselves because they were involved in the lower Courts. When I asked him about that, he seemed to suggest that that was in relation to a fast-track permission to appeal. I can see no evidence of Master Bancroft-Rimmer or Master Meacher’s involvement at the lower Courts. As I say again, I do not have a bundle and so I have no information or evidence of that.

Mr Beckett then complains that he was unable to speak to the original lawyer who dealt with the case. That would not have taken him any further forward because that lawyer was not dealing with this case, although still a member of the Court of Appeal Office, he is not dealing now with public law.

Mr Beckett complains that he has been shockingly treated, because amongst other things, he tried to call someone on their day off and did not get through. There is no absolute right to call anyone on their day off.

Mr Beckett was directed to file a bundle and he has decided to ignore that direction.
Mr Beckett complains of his appalling treatment by the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the Courts. I am in no position to make any judgment in relation to that, because
Mr Beckett has refused to provide a bundle with the information.

Mr Beckett refers to Taylor v Lawrence [2002] EWCA Civ; [2003] QB 528 and the well-known jurisdiction to reopen proceedings. But in the absence of materials, there is no basis to say that there has been any denial of justice.

In all those circumstances, and notwithstanding that Mr Beckett says he is shocked to the core by his treatment, I am afraid that I can see no principled basis on which this case should continue. That is because Mr Beckett has refused to file a bundle of papers. The short order I will make is to affirm the order made by Master Bancroft-Rimmer, that the matter should stand dismissed with costs.

The only good thing from Mr Beckett’s point of view is that in the absence of involvement of the respondents, is it seems there will be no costs that will be paid by him, because the respondents have taken no part in these proceedings.

For all those reasons, I affirm the order from Master Bancroft-Rimmer.