Dragutin Popovic, R (on the application of) v Ealing Magistrates Court & Ors
[2023] EWHC 1875 (Admin)
Hesamedin Navabi, R (on the application of) v Crown Court at Durham
25 April 2023
[2023] EWHC 943 (Admin)
High Court
A man was given a suspended sentence and later accused of breaking it. He tried to challenge this in a higher court, but the higher court said he'd waited too long and his arguments weren't strong enough, so they refused to hear his case.
Key Facts
- •Claimant sentenced to 24-month suspended sentence with requirements (curfew, rehabilitation activity, electronic monitoring).
- •Claimed breach of suspended sentence due to threat to probation officer.
- •Crown Court hearing on 11 February 2021 resulted in continued suspended sentence, 7-day residence order, and £285 costs.
- •Claimant challenged the Crown Court's order via judicial review.
- •Multiple applications for permission for judicial review were refused at various stages due to delay and lack of arguability.
Legal Principles
Judicial Review - Permission Stage
Supreme Court Practice Direction
Abuse of power, abuse of process, incompatibility with statutory scheme, human rights incompatibility (Article 6 ECHR), unreasonableness, and unfairness.
Criminal Justice Act 2003, Sentencing Act 2020, Human Rights Act 1998
Outcomes
Application to set aside HHJ Kramer's order refused.
Delay and lack of arguability of the claim.
Application for permission for judicial review dismissed.
Lack of arguability; Claimant accepted the breach at the hearing; delay in seeking judicial review; delay in seeking renewal of permission.
Extension of time for claim for judicial review refused.
Inadequate justification for delays; Claimant's explanations for delay were not accepted.
Application for certificate of point of law of general public importance refused.
Case turned on specific facts and circumstances.