QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand London WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF SHARING | Claimant | |
v | ||
PRESTON COUNTY COURT | Defendant |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
The defendant did not appear and was not represented
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
"How should such a defect be described in principle? I think a distinction may be drawn between a case where the judge simply gets it wrong, even extremely wrong (and wrong on the law, or the facts, or both) and a case where, as I would venture to put it, the judicial process itself has been frustrated or corrupted. This, I think, marks the truly exceptional case. It will or may include the case of pre-Anisminic jurisdiction error, where the court embarks upon an enquiry which it lacks all power to deal with, or fails altogether to enquire or adjudicate upon a matter which it was its unequivocal duty to address. It would include substantial denial of the right to a fair hearing, and it may include cases where the lower court has indeed acted 'in complete disregard of its duties' (Gregory), and cases where the court has declined to go into a point of law in a particular area which, against a background of conflicting decisions of a lower tribunal, the public interest obviously requires to be decided (Sinclair)...The courts will have to be vigilant to see that only truly exceptional cases -- where there has indeed, as I have put it, been a frustration or corruption of the very judicial process -- are allowed to proceed to judicial review in cases where further appeal rights are barred by section 54(4)."
"Accordingly, I conclude that there is here no case of pre-Anisminic jurisdictional error. Secondly, there were no gross procedural failings. There was no question of real or apparent bias. The parties were probably heard by the district judge and the circuit judge."
"It is suggested that the second statement of PC Dempster, which was taken long after the events in question and after, indeed, the trial, makes a crucial difference. In my judgment, it does not. I have read the transcript of the proceedings carefully and it is plain to me, and it would be plain to any appeal court looking at this matter independently, that what happened is the claimant's case was destroyed, A, because of her own dishonesty in relation to what she did with the deposit that she obtained from her grandparents and that was exposed quite clearly as being dishonest conduct and, secondly, the evidence of Tracy Morley was important in completely devastating the claimant's case.
One has only got to read the transcript of her evidence to appreciate what an important witness she was."
"The judge is patently saying, 'I have seen this lady in the witness box and I do not believe her'. There we are. This is not a case where permission to appeal should be given."
"I am not interested in fresh evidence, fresh evidence is very rarely admitted...and, frankly, you are grasping at straws in this regard. You have already lost the case on the basis of the judge's views about credibility."
A little further on, having said that he had read everything in the appeal bundle, he said this:
"It does not make a crucial difference, you lost because the judge did not believe your claimant."
"Throws an entirely different complexion on the weight given to the officer's evidence, the difficult task of weighing up done by District Judge Park. Had he and were he in possession of this evidence, it is our respectful submission that he would not have preferred the defendant. His credibility is ruined by the officer's second statement."
Are there any other consequential matters?