|[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 >> Waxman, R (on the application of) v Crown Prosecution Service  EWHC 133 (Admin) (02 February 2012)
Cite as:  EWHC 133 (Admin)
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
| THE QUEEN
(on the application of CLAIRE WAXMAN)
|- and -
|CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE
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)
Mr. Louis Mably (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) for the defendant
Hearing date: 14th November 2011
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Moore-Bick:
" . . . a substantial amount of money which was awarded to the defendant as compensation at a previous case held at Brent Magistrates' court."
The claim was struck out as having no prospect of success. It could equally well have been regarded as an abuse of the process.
"(1) To close down a Facebook website created by [Ms Waxman] and its associated social network sites which contains [sic] details of a hate campaign against myself, Elliot Fogel.
(2) To prevent any further attempts by [Ms Waxman], either directly or indirectly, to get me sectioned under the Mental Health Act."
On 1st February 2011 that claim too was struck out as being wholly without merit and a civil restraint order was made prohibiting Mr. Fogel from issuing any further claim without the leave of a circuit judge.
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations . . . everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law."
It is recognised that this is not an absolute right, however, and is subject to restrictions necessary to achieve a legitimate social objective: see Ashingdane v United Kingdom (1985) 7 EHRR 528. The prevention of persistent harassment of the kind in which Mr. Fogel had been engaged is, in my view, a legitimate social objective that is capable of justifying a restriction on his rights under Article 6.