Hamberger, R (On the Application Of) v Crown Prosecution Service [2014] EWHC 2814 (Admin) (20 May 2014)

Hamberger, R (On the Application Of) v Crown Prosecution Service [2014] EWHC 2814 (Admin) (20 May 2014)

There are no sufficiently arguable grounds for judicial review because the decision to continue prosecution was rational, the trial process provides adequate protections, and no exceptional circumstances exist to justify intervention by the Administrative Court.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 2814 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Hamberger; Defendant: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission to Apply for Judicial Review
Outcome
Permission to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Prosecution Discretion, Fitness to Plead, Video Link Evidence, Article 2 ECHR, Article 3 ECHR, Article 6 ECHR, Case Management, Exceptional Circumstances for Judicial Review
Criminal Law Judicial Review Human Rights Prosecution Discretion Fitness to Plead Video Link Evidence Article 2 ECHR Article 3 ECHR +3 more

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hamberger

Claimant

Crown Prosecution Service

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission to Apply for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CPS decision to continue prosecution was unlawful due to claimant's health and ECHR rights
  2. 2 Whether judicial review is available to challenge the CPS decision during ongoing Crown Court proceedings
  3. 3 Whether statutory authority exists for the claimant to participate in trial by video link

Ratio Decidendi

There are no sufficiently arguable grounds for judicial review because the decision to continue prosecution was rational, the trial process provides adequate protections, and no exceptional circumstances exist to justify intervention by the Administrative Court.

Court Disposition

Permission to apply for judicial review refused