England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Lindridge v Chief Constable of Kent & Anor [2008] EWHC 2699 (Admin) (10 June 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/2699.html
Cite as: [2008] EWHC 2699 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

		Neutral Citation Number: [2008] EWHC 2699 (Admin)
		CO/5374/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL

10th June 2008

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE LATHAM
MR JUSTICE NELSON
____________________

Between:

	LINDRIDGE	Claimant
	v
	(1) CHIEF CONSTABLE OF KENT
	(2) CARLISLE COUNTY COURT	Defendants

____________________

Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

____________________

The Claimant appeared in person with litigation friend Mr Gladstone
The Defendants were not represented and did not attend
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

MR JUSTICE NELSON: There are two applications by the claimant, Mrs Lindridge, before the court in this matter, at least as far as the papers are concerned. The first is her renewed application for permission to judicially review the decision of the first defendant, the Chief Constable of Kent, to return certain items of her property to her, which the Kent Police have had in their possession. The second is her application to challenge the limited restraint order made by the second defendant, Carlisle County Court, on 20th February 2007.

Those were the matters which came before Holman J on paper, and which he dealt with on the 8th April 2008 by rejecting them, the first on the grounds that he could not identify any judicially reviewable decision, and the second on the grounds that Carlisle County Court's decision was not reviewable by judicial review and had in any event expired.

Before us today, Mrs Lindridge appearing in person, together with Mr Gladstone, who has acted as her McKenzie Friend, has put matters somewhat wider than those two applications. Underlying much of her complaint is the contention that she herself has received bad medical treatment, false medical records were created in relation to her condition, and those have, through the passage of time, effectively become true, even though they are false. She has been harassed as a consequence of this and has set up a charity, not merely in respect of her own situation, but also in order to protect patients generally. Her underlying complaint, therefore, is against the medical profession and against the manner in which the courts deal with her care and patients generally.

The documents which she put before the court include even more wide complaints. It is helpful to get an idea of the nature of those to look at her detailed grounds, which are also entitled "Victim's statement". In that, she describes herself as a management consultant who has been targeted by an organised crime network, some of whom work in the public sector. She says she has used innovative techniques to educate the UK Government, via the Prime Minister and Home Secretary, as to the problems that the UK might have had, being undermined. The organised crime network has done their best to ensure that she does not return to the High Court. Crimes have been happening in both Kent and Cumbria and she herself has been targeted.

She complains not merely of her ill-treatment at the hands of doctors, thereafter and other patients, but also of car crashes. In particular one on 20th February 2002 in which she was involved. She feels that she has been additionally targeted on various other occasions. She also alleges that there has been a conspiracy to defraud her, the Patient Support Trust, of which she is part, and indeed the NHS generally.

She has brought numerous actions over the years against various different parties. She has, the papers reveal, a history of achievement herself, as well as misfortune. She has been a successful business woman, a consultant, and has also suffered from depression, been involved in road accidents and, as I have already indicated, suffered problems in relation to medical treatment and has substantial complaints against doctors.

What she said that she would wish for today, although it does not appear in any part of her written application, is an order requesting the Chief Constable of Kent to investigate various criminal matters that either he or his force have been responsible for, or for covering up, and in particular to deal with doctors who have falsified records.

Mr Gladstone lent his support to that and indicated that what would be of great help would be some kind of declaration that patients, that is patients of doctors generally, would be treated as being included under the human rights legislation. We have also read the letter from Mr Gladstone setting out, on 22nd May 2008, his own personal situation and the problems that he has had with the medical profession.

We have considered all the documentation before us and we have also considered the matters that I have recited now. As will be apparent, they cover a wide-ranging field. They are not focused on any particular matter, the subject of judicial review, and it is with regret that for my part I have to say that nothing which appears, either in the papers or which has been said to us today, by either Mrs Lindridge or Mr Gladstone, can properly be the subject of an order of judicial review. There is no decision in respect of which judicial review is sought. The Carlisle County Court cannot be challenged by way of judicial review in relation to the limited restraint order it made, and, as Holman J said, when considering it generally, the claimant's documents lack coherence or focus and do not identify any arguable claim for judicial review.

This is not a forum in which any order which will assist either Mrs Lindridge or Mr Gladstone can be made. For my part, I see no alternative but to reject the application for judicial review in both respects, and indeed in the wider respects in which Mrs Lindridge placed the matter before the court today.

LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: I agree. I think the difficulty in this case comes from a failure to appreciate what it is that judicial review is there to achieve. In this context, the problem is, as my Lord has already indicated, that there is no decision which can provide the focus and basis of any proceedings by way of judicial review. Essentially, what Mrs Lindridge is asking for is an inquiry. That is not something that we can provide by way of judicial review, nor can we make any order based upon the material before us which could achieve that result. So the application for leave must be refused.

THE CLAIMANT: Excuse me, the Chief Constable has got a copy of this evidence but he will not investigate the crime, is that right?

LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: I am afraid we have said what we have, Mrs Lindridge. Thank you very much.