QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
SITTING AT BRISTOL
2 Redcliffe Street
B e f o r e :
|THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF MR PEGRAM|
|BRISTOL CROWN COURT & ORS|
291-299 Borough High Street, London SE1 1JG
Tel: 020 7269 0370
NO APPEARANCE by or on behalf of the Defendants
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE ANDREW BAKER:
"I think it very unfortunate that the expression, "frivolous" ever entered the lexicon of procedural jargon. To the man or woman in the street "frivolous" is suggestive of light-heartedness or a propensity to humour and these are not qualities associated with most appellants or prospective appellants. What the expression means in this context is, in my view, that the court considers the application to be futile, misconceived, hopeless or academic. That is not a conclusion to which justices to whom an application to state a case is made will often or likely come. It is not a conclusion to which they can properly come simply because they consider their decision to be right or immune from challenge … But there are cases in which justices can properly form an opinion that an application is frivolous. Where they do, it will be helpful to indicate, however briefly, why they form that opinion. A blunt and unexplained refusal, as in this case, may well leave an applicant entirely uncertain as to why the justices regard an application futile, misconceived, hopeless or academic. Such uncertainty is liable to lead to unnecessary litigation and expenditure on costs."
"1) Was the Bench correct in finding that PC Millet was acting in the execution of his duty in circumstances where PC Millet accepted in his evidence that he grabbed hold of the defendant and continued to hold on to him in order to speak to him, at a time when PC Millet was not purporting to make arrest or exercise any other police power granting the use of force?
2) If PC Millet's contact with Mr Pegram was within the norms of acceptable behaviour, was Mr Pegram entitled to use reasonable force to bring such contact to an end if he did not consent to it?
3) Was the Bench correct in refusing to give any form of modified good character direction in respect of Mr Pegram?
4) Was the Bench correct in finding Mr Pegram's conduct to be reckless, where the officer gave evidence that the defendant swiped his arm away, and in doing so, accidently hit the officer's face?"
1) whether upon the facts found in the Crown Court, PC Millet was acting in the execution of his duty when taking hold of the defendant;
2) whether upon the evidence before the Crown Court a prima facie case of self-defence was raised, and if so, whether the dismissal of the claimant's appeal to the Crown Court was sound in law; and
3) whether the approach adopted in the Crown Court on page 80 (of 87), at E-F, in the transcript of the appeal proceedings, constituted or involved a misdirection of law as to character.