Pegram, R (On the Application Of) v Bristol Crown Court & Ors [2019] EWHC 965 (Admin) (22 March 2019)

Pegram, R (On the Application Of) v Bristol Crown Court & Ors [2019] EWHC 965 (Admin) (22 March 2019)

The refusal to state a case was not properly considered in accordance with the applicable legal test, as it failed to address whether the proposed questions of law were frivolous and did not provide adequate reasons; therefore, the refusal is quashed and a mandatory order is made to state a case on three clarified questions of law.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 965 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Pegram; Defendants: Bristol Crown Court & Ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Judicial Review of Refusal to State a Case
Outcome
Application for judicial review allowed; refusal to state a case quashed; mandatory order to state a case on three clarified questions of law.
Legal Topics
Assault on Police Officer, Case Stated Procedure, Self Defence, Good Character Direction, Judicial Reasoning Standards
Criminal Law Judicial Review Police Law Assault on Police Officer Case Stated Procedure Self Defence Good Character Direction Judicial Reasoning Standards

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Pegram

Claimant

Bristol Crown Court & Ors

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Judicial Review of Refusal to State a Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown Court properly refused to state a case for appeal on questions of law
  2. 2 Whether the refusal was reasoned and in accordance with legal standards
  3. 3 Whether the questions of law proposed were frivolous

Ratio Decidendi

The refusal to state a case was not properly considered in accordance with the applicable legal test, as it failed to address whether the proposed questions of law were frivolous and did not provide adequate reasons; therefore, the refusal is quashed and a mandatory order is made to state a case on three clarified questions of law.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review allowed; refusal to state a case quashed; mandatory order to state a case on three clarified questions of law.

Orders

  • Refusal to state a case is quashed.
  • Mandatory order that a case be stated for appeal on three clarified questions of law.