Director of Public Prosecutions, R (on the application of) v Manchester City Magistrates’ Court
[2023] EWHC 2938 (Admin)
Director of Public Prosecutions, R (on the application of) v Manchester City Magistrates’ Court (Consequential Matters)
30 January 2024
[2024] EWHC 111 (Admin)
High Court
After a court case about a public order offence, the judge decided whether the magistrates' court should always check if human rights were respected. The judge also said that the case was so important the people who had been wrongly accused should get their legal costs paid back. Finally, the judge gave permission to appeal the decision, but that appeal has not been heard yet.
Key Facts
- •Sequel judgment to [2023] EWHC 2938 (Admin) concerning consequential matters after judicial review.
- •Case involved an appeal against a Magistrates' Court decision related to a Public Order Act 1986 offence.
- •Interested parties were acquitted.
- •Claimant (DPP) sought to certify a point of law, appeal to the Supreme Court, and had their application for costs considered.
- •Case treated as a test case by the Claimant, involving significant legal resources.
Legal Principles
Proportionality assessment in Magistrates' Courts when Convention rights are engaged in Public Order Act 1986 offences.
Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 and Articles 10 and/or 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights
Awarding of costs in criminal cases under the civil costs regime.
Section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981
Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is generally granted by the Supreme Court itself.
Implicit in the judgment
Outcomes
Granted certification of the point of law: 'Is a Magistrates’ Court, when trying a person accused of an offence contrary to section 4 A of the Public Order Act 1986 in circumstances where rights under Article 10 and/or 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights are engaged, required to conduct a fact-sensitive proportionality assessment?'
Statutory conditions met: point of law, general public importance, involved in the decision.
Refused leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Generally the Supreme Court should decide; cases not in tension; Convention rights must be safeguarded in the individual case; no alternative safeguarding test offered.
Granted Interested Parties' applications for costs.
Exceptional circumstances; case treated as a test case; significant legal resources; far-reaching issues; prosecution position described as 'shifting sands'; misconceived prosecution application to state a case; interests of justice served by full participation of Interested Parties.
Granted Interested Parties' payment on account of £20,000 each, with 28-day payment period and a stay of execution pending Supreme Court proceedings.
Justified and appropriate; unopposed.
Similar Cases
Director of Public Prosecutions v Cathy Eastburn
[2023] EWHC 1063 (Admin)
The Director of Public Prosecutions, R (on the application of) v Northampton Magistrates Court
[2024] EWHC 2324 (Admin)
Amanat Ullah, R (on the application of) v National Crime Agency
[2023] EWHC 371 (Admin)
ABC & Ors v Derbyshire County Council & Ors (No. 2: Costs)
[2023] EWHC 1337 (KB)