High Court Upholds Decision in Hesamedin Navabi Case, Emphasizing Arguability and Timeliness in Judicial Review

Citation: [2023] EWHC 943 (Admin)
Judgment on


In the case of Hesamedin Navabi, R (on the application of) v Crown Court at Durham, the High Court of Justice’s Administrative Court was tasked with reviewing several issues related to the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. The Claimant, representing himself, challenged the lawfulness of a Summons for alleged non-compliance with a Suspended Sentence Order, the Crown Court’s subsequent actions, and a costs order made against him. The judgment expounds upon several pertinent legal principles within the realm of judicial review, highlighting the court’s approach to arguability, delay, extensions of time, and costs.

Key Facts

The Claimant was sentenced to a suspended term of imprisonment with specific requirements and was later summoned for allegedly threatening a probation officer, constituting a supposed ‘breach’ of the Suspended Sentence Order. On 11 February 2021, the Judge marked this ‘breach’ with a 7-day residence order and imposed prosecution costs on the Claimant, which he promptly paid. The Claimant then sought judicial review, contesting the lawfulness of the proceedings.

Despite Julian Knowles J’s refusal of permission for judicial review on the grounds of both delay and lack of arguability, the Claimant pursued several subsequent applications aimed at reopening the claim and challenging the Crown Court’s actions. HHJ Kramer also refused an extension of time, and the matter was ultimately set down for a hearing on notice, where only the Claimant appeared.

Several key legal principles were applied in this case, predominantly focused around the suitability of the case for judicial review and the subsequent procedural matters:

  1. Arguability: Julian Knowles J and HHJ Kramer deemed the claim for judicial review non-arguable, emphasizing that a breach was explicitly admitted in the Crown Court, leading to the Judge’s order being unchallengeable on the grounds brought forward.

  2. Delay in Seeking Judicial Review: The court refused permission for judicial review due to the delay in initiating proceedings. Julian Knowles J found that the challenge pertained to the decision dated 11 February 2021, but the claimant did not seek judicial review until the end of July 2021, thus not acting promptly after receiving the relevant information on 15 May 2021.

  3. Extension of Time for Renewal: HHJ Kramer’s refusal to grant an extension of time to make a renewal application was upheld. Given the Claimant’s failure to notify the court of a change of address and the absence of a good reason for the delay after 15 May 2021, the extension was deemed unwarranted.

  4. Costs: The ordered prosecution costs were held to be reasonable and supported by evidence. The Claimant’s own actions during the Crown Court hearing reinforced this.

  5. Points of Law of General Public Importance: The Claimant requested a certificate for a point of general public importance, which was declined by MR JUSTICE FORDHAM due to the case’s reliance on specific facts and circumstances, rather than issues of broader legal significance.


The court concluded that the claim for judicial review was neither arguable nor had it been filed promptly. The court dismissed the application for judicial review, refused an extension time for the claim, and declined to issue a certificate recognizing a point of law of general public importance. The decision substantiated HHJ Kramer’s order and maintained that the Crown Court proceedings were lawful.


The case underscores the importance of arguability and timeliness in judicial review proceedings. It also illuminates the court’s stance on assessing costs and the significance of engaging with the court process properly, including the clarity of acknowledged breaches and the accuracy of recorded admissions in court. This judgment demonstrates the courts’ impetus to uphold its standards regarding procedural fairness and judicial economy, while providing guidance on when the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction is appropriate.