Elliott, R (on the application of) v Stoke On Trent Crown Court

MR JUSTICE COLLINS: This is a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review against a decision of the Crown Court, sitting at Stoke-on-Trent, whereby it dismissed an appeal brought by the claimant against his convictions for dangerous driving and failing to provide a specimen of breath. The offences in question occurred some time ago. He denied the charges. He was convicted by the north Staffordshire Magistrates' Court on 4th July 2007, and as I say by the Crown Court on 11th April 2008.

This claim for judicial review was lodged on the 18th September 2008 and thus was out of time. The explanation given by the claimant essentially was that he was trying to apply for means to appeal against the Crown Court. He tried to go to the Court of Appeal, but was told that that was not possible and it took him a considerable time, because he was not legally qualified, to appreciate what route, if any was possible, was appropriate. Of course, one route might have been, if there had been any point in it at all, a case stated.

Be that as it may, it seems to me that the reasons that he seeks to rely on for the delay are inadequate and I would have refused permission on the ground of delay. But there is no merit at all in the claim. Essentially what he asserts is that the witnesses against him were lying and the court should not have believed them rather than him. That is a question of fact. The evidence against him came from four police officers and a passenger in the car that he was driving. On the face of it, the evidence was indeed compelling. But there is no conceivable point of law in the decision to found any challenge. So the claim being on its merits totally without merit means that on that ground too permission should be refused.

The claimant has not attended this hearing. The court has made enquiries and has ascertained that he was served with notice of today's hearing on 2nd March 2009. Attempts were made to telephone him this morning, but the telephone went to voicemail. A message has been left, but there has been no response. As I say, there is no argument that he could conceivably put forward which would indicate that there was any merit in this application. I would therefore refuse it.

LORD JUSTICE MAURICE KAY: I agree and would only add this, lest the claimant think otherwise. If he sees a transcript of this hearing and sees my name as the presiding judge, he can be reassured that I am not the judge who refused him permission on the papers. That was a namesake of mine.

MR BENNETT: On one matter, your Lordships. Are you likely to make any order for costs in respect of this matter against the claimant?

LORD JUSTICE MAURICE KAY: You will not get any costs for coming today, that is for sure. Because, with the greatest of respect, those who instruct you are entitled to send you but they cannot expect to be paid for your presence, even he had turned up you would not have been paid. The question arises as to acknowledgement of service costs.

MR JUSTICE COLLINS: I would add to what my Lord has said that sometimes parties should trust the judges. There are cases which are manifestly hopeless and this was one. Do you have costs of the acknowledgement of service?

LORD JUSTICE MAURICE KAY: They look as though they were done in-house, were they?

MR BENNETT: My Lord, they were.

LORD JUSTICE MAURICE KAY: We will order that the claimant pay £50 towards the costs of -- well you are the interested party, are you not?

MR BENNETT: My Lord, yes.

LORD JUSTICE MAURICE KAY: In relation to the preparation of the acknowledgement of service.

MR BENNETT: My Lord I am very grateful.

LORD JUSTICE MAURICE KAY: Thank you very much indeed.