|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions >> PP v The Home Office & Anor  EWHC 663 (QB) (30 March 2017)
Cite as:  WLR 3189,  1 WLR 3189,  WLR(D) 233,  EWHC 663 (QB)
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [View ICLR summary:  WLR(D) 233] [Buy ICLR report:  1 WLR 3189] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
(sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
- and -
|(1) THE HOME OFFICE
(2) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE
Mr Jack Anderson (instructed by Government legal Department) for the Defendants
Hearing dates: 9 February 2017
Crown Copyright ©
HHJ Parkes QC:
i) Whether the false imprisonment claim is an abuse of process because the errors of law alleged should have been raised in a claim for judicial review;
ii) Whether the claim for breach of Art 4 ECHR should be struck out on limitation grounds;
iii) Whether the Claimant should have permission to rely on the report of Professor Ryszard Piotrowicz dated 5 February 2016 annexed to the Particulars of Claim, and if so, what directions should be made about written questions and attendance at trial.
ABUSE OF PROCESS
"Now that …. all remedies for infringements of rights protected by public law can be obtained upon an application for judicial review, as can also remedies for infringements of rights under private law if such infringements should also be involved, it would in my view as a general rule be contrary to public policy, and as such an abuse of the process of the court, to permit a person seeking to establish that a decision of a public authority infringed rights to which he was entitled to protection under public law to proceed by way of an ordinary action and by this means to evade the provisions of (RSC) Order 53 for the protection of such authorities."
"Just as on a judicial review application the court may enlarge time if justice so requires, in a civil suit it may now intervene, notwithstanding the currency of the limitation period, if the entirety of circumstances – including of course the availability of judicial review – demonstrates that the court's processes are being misused, or if it is clear that because of the lapse of time or other circumstances no worthwhile relief can be expected."
"This appears to me to be an entirely different situation from the present, where Mr Shingara has no private law right to claim damages for false imprisonment unless he can show that the public law decision by which his liberty was curtailed was unlawfully made. In order to do this he must, in my judgment, challenge that decision directly in proceedings brought for that purpose, and it is now far too late for him to do so."
RELIANCE ON THE REPORT OF PROFESSOR PIOTROWICZ
i) whether the proposed expert evidence will assist the court in its task;
ii) whether the witness has the necessary knowledge and experience;
iii) whether the witness is impartial in his or her presentation and assessment of the evidence; and
iv) whether there is a reliable body of knowledge or experience to underpin the expert's evidence.