INTRODUCTION 1

Appealing/challenging Magistrates’ Courts decisions 1

Error of fact or fact and law 1

Error of law or excess of jurisdiction 1

Unfairness, bias or procedural irregularity 1

‘Case stated’ – preferred method of challenge to legal error 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURT 3

CROWN COURT 4

REMEDIES 5

INTRODUCTION

Appealing/challenging Magistrates’ Courts decisions

There are three routes of appeals or challenges of decisions made by the Magistrates Court. Choosing the correct route depends on the type of error which has been made.

Error of fact or fact and law

An appeal to the Crown Court against conviction and/or sentence results in a complete re-hearing of the case. This is appropriate where the Magistrates have made an error of facts or a combined error of facts and law. Where they have made a decision not justified on the evidence they heard

Error of law or excess of jurisdiction

The appropriate route of appeal is to the High Court by way of case stated (s.111 Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980).

Unfairness, bias or procedural irregularity

Judicial Review – As JR is also a matter where errors of law are challenged, there is a fine line between the JR route or the ‘case stated’ route. The basic rule is the presence of unfairness. Where unfairness is present, JR may be more appropriate. In errors of law, Case Stated may be more appropriate.

‘Case stated’ – preferred method of challenge to legal error

The purpose of the Case Stated procedure is to get the High Court answer to a question of law posed by the Magistrates Court. The parties seeking to challenge the Magistrates Court decision applies to the Court for it to state a case for the opinion of the High Court – Magistrates Court will set out its reasoning and frame a question of law for the High Court to decide. If necessary, the parties would agree the wording of the application – the Magistrates Court may amend it, if necessary.

Section 111 MCA 1980:

“(1) Any person who was a party to any proceeding before a magistrates' court or is aggrieved by the conviction, order, determination or other proceeding of the court may question the proceeding on the ground that it is wrong in law or is in excess of jurisdiction by applying to the justices composing the court to state a case for the opinion of the High Court on the question of law or jurisdiction involved;”

s111 (4): Right of appeal to the Crown Court ceases

s111 (5): Justices may refuse to state a case on the ground that it is “frivolous”

s111 (6): Applicant may then apply to the High Court for a mandatory order (in practice will be heard together with the ‘case stated’ review)

NB: 21 day time limit

MAGISTRATES’ COURT

• Use JR if ‘case stated’ appeal is for some reason “clearly inappropriate” [R v Morpeth Justices ex p Ward (1992) Cr App R 215] – Where there has been a procedural error e.g. where defendant prevented from being heard, or denied the opportunity of cross-examining a witness

• Appeal to the Crown Court is not precluded (unlike case stated)

Best practice: lodge an appeal to the CC with an application to adjourn pending the HC decision.

• R v Brent JJ ex p Liles [1992] COD 269 – Where an appeal is begun by way of case stated, but for some reason this becomes impractical, the High Court retains the discretion to consider the application as if it were an application for JR.

• R (Paul Rackham Ltd) v Swaffham Magistrates’ Court [2005] JPL 224 – Case stated is not available as a means of challenging committal proceedings. Judicial...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Judicial Review Notes.