Johnson, R (on the application of) v Bristol Crown Court [2017] EWHC 2528 (Admin) (21 February 2017)
The reasons given by the Crown Court were sufficient, the decision was not perverse or against the weight of evidence, procedural impropriety did not materially affect the outcome, and there was no real or apparent bias. No violation of Article 6 or Article 8 rights was established.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] EWHC 2528 (Admin)
- Parties
- Claimant: Johnson; Defendant: Bristol Crown Court
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 21 February 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Battery, Procedural Impropriety, Judicial Reasoning, Article 6 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Johnson
Claimant
Bristol Crown Court
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Crown Court's decision was against the weight of evidence
- 2 Whether there was procedural impropriety
- 3 Whether the reasons given by the Crown Court were defective or insufficient
Ratio Decidendi
The reasons given by the Crown Court were sufficient, the decision was not perverse or against the weight of evidence, procedural impropriety did not materially affect the outcome, and there was no real or apparent bias. No violation of Article 6 or Article 8 rights was established.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- Permission to appeal refused
- No order to quash Crown Court decision
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment