England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

		Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWCA Civ 1248
		Case No: C/2002/1149

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
DIVISIONAL COURT
Sedley LJ and Gage J

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		29th August 2002

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE BROOKE
____________________

Between:


	The Queen On the application of EDIM MEHMET	Claimant/ Appellant
	and –
	CLERK TO THE JUSTICE OF MISKIN, CYNON VALLEY & METHYR TYDFILL PETTY SESSIONAL DIVISIONS	Defendant/ Respondent

____________________

(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

____________________

The Appellant appeared in person
The Respondent was not present or represented
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
AS APPROVED BY THE COURT
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

Lord Justice Brooke :

1. This is an application by Mr Nedim Mehmet for permission to appeal from the decision of a Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division (Lord Justice Sedley and Mr Justice Gage) given on 27th May 2002 refusing him permission to seek judicial review of the decision of the Defendant made on 30th January 2001 assessing his costs arising under a Defendant’s costs order made in his favour upon his acquittal by the Aberdare Justices on 19th October 2000 at £251.90. The Appellant had sought costs in the sum of £11,754.30.
2. The Divisional Court refused him permission to seek judicial review on the basis that the application was made long out of time and also because it lacked merit.
3. The first question which arises on this application is whether this court has any jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Section 18(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 provides, so far as is material, that

“(1) No appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal –

(a) … from any judgment of the High Court in any criminal cause or matter.”

4. The modern approach of this court to issues of this kind is set out in the judgment of Sir John Donaldson MR in Carr v Atkins [1987] 1 QB 963. In that case the applicants sought to appeal to this court from a decision of a Divisional Court on an application for judicial review of an order made by a circuit judge at the Central Criminal Court for the production of certain “special procedure material” within the meaning of section 14 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Sir John Donaldson said at p 967A-B:

“One thing is quite clear. The nature of an order made or refused in judicial review proceedings must depend not upon that order but upon the order that is sought to be reviewed. What was being reviewed in this case was an order under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.”

5. So far as Mr Mehmet is concerned, the order sought to be reviewed is the assessment of the costs due to him under a defendant’s costs order made in criminal proceedings. I have therefore no doubt at all that this proposed appeal relates to a judgment of the High Court in a criminal cause or matter. In R v Steel (1876-7) 2 QBD 37 this court was concerned with the virtually identical language contained in section 47 of the recently enacted Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873. In that case private prosecutors were dissatisfied with the amount allowed on a taxation of the defendants’ costs following an unsuccessful prosecution for criminal libel on a criminal information in the High Court. Lord Coleridge CJ said at p 41 that the order of the court to tax was a matter of course after judgment and that it was clearly part of the procedure in a criminal matter. See also the judgment of Brett JA at p 42. Whether the original order which led to the taxation of costs in a criminal matter was made by magistrates, and then came up to the High Court by way of an application for judicial review, or whether it was made by the High Court itself appears to me to make no difference, in the light of what was said in Carr v Atkins (see para 4 above).
6. This situation must be very clearly distinguished from the situation in Gooch v Evans [1985] 3 All ER 654. That case was concerned not with the assessment of costs but with the procedure sanctioned by section 87(3) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 for the enforcement of an order for a fixed amount of compensation and costs by way of garnishee proceedings in the High Court. Section 87, so far as is material, then provided that:

“(1) …payment of a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction of a magistrates’ court may be enforced by the High Court … as if the sum were due to the clerk of the magistrates’ court in pursuance of a judgment or order of the High Court …

(3) The clerk of the magistrates’ court shall not take proceedings by virtue of subsection (1) above to recover any sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction of the court from any person unless authorised to do so by the court after an inquiry under section 82 above into that person’s means …”

7. Lawton LJ, with whom Slade and Dillon LJJ agreed, analysed the question of this court’s jurisdiction at pp 658g-659g. He said that if Parliament had not made special provision for the enforcement of such an order this court would have lacked jurisdiction, but after considering the effect of section 87 and its predecessor section (section 45(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967) he concluded at p 659f-g:

“It seems to me plain that Parliament intended that the civil enforcement procedure, without any restriction on appeals to this court by either the clerk or the convicted person, should be used to secure the payment of sums, whether by way of costs, damages or compensation, adjudged to be paid on a conviction: see s 150(3) of the [Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980]. I would adjudge that this court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal.”

8. As I have said, the present case, where there is nothing comparable to the section 87 procedure, can be very clearly distinguished. The words “in any criminal cause or matter”, which are now contained in section 18 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, are to be given a wide meaning: see ex p Woodhall (1888) 20 QBD 835, 836 and Amand v Home Secretary [1943] AC 147, 159-162. They are certainly wide enough to embrace the assessment of costs under the defendant’s costs order made by the Aberdare justices at the conclusion of the criminal proceedings against Mr Mehmet.
9. For these reasons I am satisfied that this court has no jurisdiction to hear this application, and it is therefore dismissed. Mr Mehmet has made it clear to me that he feels very strongly about the issues he considers to be at the heart of this case. Only the House of Lords can entertain an appeal against a decision of the Divisional Court in a criminal matter, but there are some strict procedural rules which govern the right of access to the House of Lords in such a matter, on which Mr Mehmet will need to seek independent legal advice.
10. This judgment raises a point on the jurisdiction of this court which may be of general interest, and it is therefore exempt from the restrictions on citation contained in the recent practice direction.
Order; Appeal dismissed, copy of transcript to be provided to applicant. (Order does not form part of the approved judgment)