QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
R (on the application of PG)
|- and -|
|(1) LONDON BOROUGH OF EALING|
(2) THE EALING HOSPITAL MANAGERS
(3) JONATHAN SCOTT
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)
Mr Hilton Harrop-Griffiths (instructed by Legal and Democratic Services, LB of Ealing) for the First Defendant
The Second and Third Defendants did not appear and were not represented
AS APPROVED BY THE COURT
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Munby:
“whatever may have been the position before the rule was altered in 1977 in all proceedings for judicial review that have been started since that date the grant of leave to cross-examine deponents upon applications for judicial review is governed by the same principles as it is in actions begun by originating summons; it should be allowed whenever the justice of the particular case so requires.”
“In any cause or matter begun by originating summons, originating motion or petition, and on any application made by summons or motion, evidence may be given by affidavit unless in the case of any such cause, matter or application any provision of these rules otherwise provides or the Court otherwise directs, but the Court may, on the application of any party, order the attendance for cross-examination of the person making any such affidavit, and where, after such an order has been made, the person in question does not attend, his affidavit shall not be used as evidence without the leave of the Court.”
“(1) No written evidence may be relied on at the hearing of the claim unless –
(a) it has been served in accordance with rule 8.5; or
(b) the court gives permission.
(2) The court may require or permit a party to give oral evidence at the hearing.
(3) The court may give directions requiring the attendance for cross-examination of a witness who has given written evidence.”
“(1) Rule 8.6 does not apply.
(2) No written evidence may be relied on unless –
(a) it has been served in accordance with any –
(i) rule under this Part; or
(ii) direction of the court; or
(b) the court gives permission.”
“It is unclear whether this rule was intended to restrict the availability of cross-examination. It seems likely that the courts will regard themselves as able to order cross-examination in the exercise of their inherent jurisdiction in any event although there will be few judicial review cases where cross-examination will be appropriate.”
““the intensity of review in a public law case will depend on the subject matter in hand”. That is so even in cases involving Convention rights. In law context is everything.”
“(1) The court may control the evidence by giving directions as to –
(a) the issues on which it requires evidence;
(b) the nature of the evidence which it requires to decide those issues; and
(c) the way in which the evidence is to be placed before the court.
(2) The court may use its power under this rule to exclude evidence that would otherwise be admissible.
(3) The court may limit cross-examination.”
“Except where these Rules provide otherwise, the court may … take any other step or make any other order for the purpose of managing the case and furthering the overriding objective.”