Judicial review of Newcastle Magistrates' Court decision

Background

In a significant ruling, the High Court quashed the decision of Newcastle Magistrates' Court, which had refused to issue a summons regarding a count of forgery of a shareholding agreement. The judicial review proceedings, initiated by Anthony McGill, challenged the Magistrates' Court's decision made on 11 October 2022.

Judicial Review Proceedings

The proceedings were presided over by Fordham J, who had previously allowed the claim on 21 May 2024, finding fault with the Magistrates' Court's decision. The High Court's decision emphasised the importance of lawful decision-making, especially in cases involving indictable offences such as forgery.

Costs Submissions

Following the quashing of the decision, the court considered submissions regarding costs. The claimant, representing himself, sought costs amounting to £6,150.80, which included disbursements and costs for work done. The court ultimately awarded him £5,837.30 from central funds, recognising the expenses properly incurred in the proceedings.

Legal Analysis

The case hinged on the application of s.17(1)(a) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and CPR 46.5, which allows for costs to be awarded to self-represented litigants. The court accepted the claimant's entitlement to costs for work that would have been allowed had it been performed by a legal representative.

Role of the CPS

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), an interested party in the case, had resisted the claim but acknowledged the claimant's entitlement to recover costs from central funds. Their submissions provided a detailed analysis of the legal framework applicable to the proceedings.

Decision on Costs

The court's decision to award costs from central funds was grounded in the recognition that the claimant had properly incurred expenses in judicial review proceedings concerning an indictable offence. The court also noted that the claimant had made clear attempts to have the CPS consider the forgery allegations, which were distinct from other allegations previously considered.

No Costs Against Defendant Court or CPS

Despite the claimant's requests, the court declined to order costs against the Newcastle Magistrates' Court or the CPS. The court determined that the circumstances did not justify such an exceptional course, noting the CPS's role as an interested party rather than a decision-maker in the original proceedings.

Conclusion

This ruling underscores the High Court's role in ensuring lawful decision-making in lower courts and highlights the potential for self-represented litigants to recover costs in judicial review proceedings. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of procedural fairness and the availability of judicial oversight in cases involving serious allegations.

Learn More

For more information on shareholder law, see BeCivil's guide to Shareholder Law.

Copyright & permissions