Jones, R (on the application of) v Judicial Appointments Commission [2014] EWHC 1680 (Admin) (23 May 2014)

Jones, R (on the application of) v Judicial Appointments Commission [2014] EWHC 1680 (Admin) (23 May 2014)

The Judicial Appointments Commission's 'six-plus penalty points' policy is lawful, rational, and proportionate for maintaining public confidence in the judiciary. The JAC properly exercised its discretion in applying the policy to the claimant, and the decision to reject the claimant for not being of good character was not irrational.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 1680 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Graham Stuart Jones; Defendant: Judicial Appointments Commission
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Substantive Judgment Following Rolled Up Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Appointments, Good Character Requirement, Constitutional Reform Act 2005, Judicial Review, Motoring Offences and Public Office
Public Law Administrative Law Judicial Appointments Good Character Requirement Constitutional Reform Act 2005 Judicial Review Motoring Offences and Public Office

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Graham Stuart Jones

Claimant

Judicial Appointments Commission

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Substantive Judgment Following Rolled Up Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the JAC's good character policy, specifically the 'six-plus penalty points' rule, is rational and lawful under section 63(3) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005
  2. 2 Whether the JAC properly exercised its discretion in applying the policy to the claimant's circumstances
  3. 3 Whether the decision to reject the claimant was irrational

Ratio Decidendi

The Judicial Appointments Commission's 'six-plus penalty points' policy is lawful, rational, and proportionate for maintaining public confidence in the judiciary. The JAC properly exercised its discretion in applying the policy to the claimant, and the decision to reject the claimant for not being of good character was not irrational.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed