Junior Lawal v The Crown Court at Cambridge
[2023] EWHC 466 (Admin)
Lehram Capital Investments Ltd, R (on the application of) v Southwark Crown Court & Anor
21 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3190 (Admin)
High Court
A company tried to appeal its conviction but didn't follow the court's rules about having a lawyer or using video conferencing. The court threw out the appeal because the company didn't show up properly. A higher court agreed that the company should have followed the rules.
Key Facts
- •Lehram Capital Investments Limited (Claimant) appealed a conviction and sentence from the City of London Magistrates’ Court to Southwark Crown Court.
- •Southwark Crown Court dismissed the appeal on 17 August 2021 due to the Claimant's non-appearance and failure to comply with court orders regarding representation.
- •The Claimant's appeal to the Administrative Court challenges the dismissal on grounds of procedural unfairness.
- •The Claimant's actions included alternating between having legal representation and claiming inability to afford it, filing numerous and lengthy documents late, and failing to clearly identify or authorize a representative.
- •The Claimant alleged threats against its directors as a reason for its difficulties in complying with court orders.
Legal Principles
Right to a fair hearing, including an unbiased tribunal and opportunity to be heard.
Kanda v. Government of Malaya [1962] AC 322, Re Hamilton, re Forrest [1981] AC 1038, R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531, R (Talpada) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 841
Fairness is context-specific; courts consider the decision-making body, type of decision, and statutory framework.
Lloyd v McMahon [1987] AC 625
Judicial review of lower tribunals for fairness, not Wednesbury review; independent judgment on fairness.
R (Mahfouz) v General Medical Council [2004] EWCA Civ 223, R (Osborn) v Parole Board [2014] AC 1115
Generous approach to case management decisions; interference only if misdirection, irrelevant factors, or plainly wrong.
Broughton v Kop Football (Cayman) Ltd [2012] EWCA 1743, R (Michael) v The Governor of HMP Whitemoor [2020] 1 WLR 2524
Duty of parties to comply with court orders and rules; non-representation doesn't lessen obligations.
Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] 1 WLR 1119, Crim PR r 1.2
Rigorous scrutiny of adjournment requests; balancing expedition with justice.
Crown Prosecution Service v Picton [2006] EWHC 1108, Balogun v Director of Public Prosecutions [2010] 1 WLR 1915
Corporations must act through natural persons; representation requires written authority (Crim PR r 46.1, Criminal Justice Act 1925 s 33, Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 s 46, Sch 3).
Crim PR r 46.1, Criminal Justice Act 1925 s 33, Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 s 46, Sch 3
Live video links require court direction in the interests of justice; considerations include participant availability, need for in-person attendance, suitability of facilities, and effectiveness of remote participation.
Criminal Justice Act 2003 s 51, R v Kadir [2023] 1 WLR 532, R v Pierini [2023] EWCA Crim 1189
Dismissal of appeal permissible if appellant fails to appear; customary practice.
R v Croydon Crown Court ex parte Clair [1986] 1 WLR 746
Apparent bias test: would a fair-minded and informed observer conclude a real possibility of bias?
H (A Child) (Recusal) [2023] EWCA Civ 860, Bubbles & Wine Ltd v Lusha [2018] EWCA Civ 468
Outcomes
Claimant's application for judicial review dismissed.
The Court's refusal to adjourn, refuse representation, and deny video link access were within its case management discretion and did not violate principles of natural justice.
Similar Cases
Sharaz Ahmed v Shamran Rehman
[2023] EWCA Civ 1504
Asif Khan, R (on the application of) v The Crown Court at Manchester
[2024] EWHC 2730 (Admin)
Hesamedin Navabi, R (on the application of) v Crown Court at Durham
[2023] EWHC 943 (Admin)
Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd v Soophia Khan & Ors
[2024] EWCA Civ 531