Hesamedin Navabi, R (on the application of) v Crown Court at Durham
[2023] EWHC 943 (Admin)
Dragutin Popovic, R (on the application of) v Ealing Magistrates Court & Ors
28 July 2023
[2023] EWHC 1875 (Admin)
High Court
A man was convicted of a crime in 2019 and tried to challenge it in court years later. The judge said he waited too long and his reasons for challenging the conviction weren't strong enough, so the judge refused to hear his case.
Key Facts
- •Claimant convicted in October 2019 for assaulting a County Court officer.
- •Claimant seeks judicial review of 10 decisions related to his conviction and subsequent events.
- •Initial application for permission to seek judicial review refused by Sir Duncan Ouseley.
- •Claimant's arguments include breach of s 11(1)(b) Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, denial of natural justice, lack of authorised prosecutor, jurisdictional issues, and unlawful refusal to reopen the conviction.
- •CPS argues lack of promptness, availability of alternative remedies, and lack of substantial difference in outcome even if errors occurred.
- •Claimant alleges procedural irregularities, lack of jurisdiction, and prejudicial material before the judge.
Legal Principles
Promptness requirement for judicial review applications.
CPR r. 54.5(1)
Judicial review is a remedy of last resort.
Case law (implied)
Test for granting permission to appeal out of time.
R v Mitchell, Terence Ewing v Brentford County Court (mentioned in judgment)
Section 11(1)(b) Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980.
Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980
Article 6(1) ECHR, Human Rights Act 1998.
Human Rights Act 1998
Section 29 Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Criminal Justice Act 2003
Section 142(1) and (2) Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980.
Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980
Section 111(4) Magistrates Court Act 1980.
Magistrates Court Act 1980
Section 31(2A) Senior Courts Act 1981.
Senior Courts Act 1981
Outcomes
Renewed application for permission to seek judicial review refused.
Application was made far too late and lacked merit; Sir Duncan Ouseley's reasons were adopted; Claimant failed to demonstrate any arguable error in Sir Duncan's reasoning.
Application to amend grounds rejected.
No substance to claim of prejudicial material before HHJ Wood.
Application to join Uxbridge Youth Court refused.
Permission for judicial review refused.
Claimant's other applications refused.
No specific rationale provided in judgment for each application.
Similar Cases
Bryce, R (on the application of) v The Ministry of Justice
[2023] EWHC 2778 (Admin)
Darykie Ramos Molina, R (on the application of) v Crown Court at Snaresbrook
[2024] EWHC 816 (Admin)
Stephen Dalton, R (on the application of) v Chair of the Police Appeals Tribunal
[2024] EWHC 1116 (Admin)
XYM, R (on the application of) v Kingston Family Court & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2372 (Admin)