BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Taylor, R (on the application of) v Wigan and Leigh Magistrates Court [2012] EWHC 1127 (Admin) (06 March 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/1127.html Cite as: [2012] EWHC 1127 (Admin) |
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Manchester Civil Justice Centre 1 Bridge Street West Manchester M3 3FX |
||
B e f o r e :
- and -
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE HICKINBOTTOM
____________________
THE QUEEN (on the application of) TAYLOR |
Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
WIGAN AND LEIGH MAGISTRATES 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 ©
Mr Justice McCombe:
"The decision to stand a defendant in a criminal matter (being the claimant in this matter) for trial without a jurisdictionally competent court having examined the adduced abuse of process defence."
"Interim remedy:
Prohibiting Order compelling the Defendant to adjourn the proposed trial pending the substantive hearing of his claim.
Further to the substantive hearing:
Declaration under s.8 of the Human Rights Act that the legislation as applied is incompatible with human rights.
A Stay of the criminal proceedings against the Claimant.
Advisory Declaration that the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs have misconstrued the Misuse of Drugs Act and thus have erred in law re their duties under it.
Damages TBA."
"15. ... The immediate challenge in this case is to the Magistrates' Court's decision to set in motion the process of his trial, having been charged with a criminal offence, which is established by an Act of Parliament, both by primary legislation and through the Order in Council process and where the decision of the CPS to bring the charge is not for a moment being challenged as having been unconscionable or procedurally improper. Rather, he argues that the Magistrates ought to assert some fundamental common law principle so as to decline to exercise the jurisdiction which they have to try such an offence essentially because, he says, they are obliged to accept his arguments that the legislation is being applied through the passage of subordinate legislation in a way which is discriminatory, irrational, illegal and a breach of the various human rights, which he has identified.
16. In my judgment, as a matter of law that is a hopeless argument. The Magistrates' Court, as he acknowledges, does not have any jurisdiction to declare, as incompatible with human rights, the legislation in question. In my judgment, the arguments which he puts forward do not begin to amount to a case for incompatibility, or for a case that any decision to prosecute is contrary to his human rights. What he has done is articulately to set out a particular policy position which he would prefer the Government to adopt, but which, thus far, it has not adopted. In my judgment that is not the business of this court and I have no hesitation in deciding that this is an unarguable challenge and that permission ought to be refused."
Mr Justice Hickinbottom:
Order: Application refused.