Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police v Hooper

Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police v Hooper

The magistrates' court had power to adjourn under section 2(6) once or more than once, but not so as to extend the period of adjournment beyond 14 days after the application for a closure order was made; section 54 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 is not impliedly excluded and provides additional adjournment power in exceptional circumstances, but the court did not take into account relevant statutory and Convention factors, rendering its decision flawed.

Parties
Claimant: The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police; Defendant: Karen Hooper
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Case Stated / Judgment
Outcome
answers to case stated; declaration made
Legal Topics
Adjournment Powers, Closure Orders, Statutory Interpretation, Convention Rights
Civil Procedure Human Rights Adjournment Powers Closure Orders Statutory Interpretation Convention Rights

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police

Claimant

Karen Hooper

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Case Stated / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether magistrates' court has jurisdiction to adjourn closure order applications more than once for up to 14 days each time under section 2(6) of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether adjournments beyond 14 days are permitted
  3. 3 Whether magistrates' court has inherent or extra-statutory jurisdiction to adjourn proceedings for periods exceeding 14 days

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrates' court had power to adjourn under section 2(6) once or more than once, but not so as to extend the period of adjournment beyond 14 days after the application for a closure order was made; section 54 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 is not impliedly excluded and provides additional adjournment power in exceptional circumstances, but the court did not take into account relevant statutory and Convention factors, rendering its decision flawed.

Court Disposition

answers to case stated; declaration made

Orders

  • Declaration as per answers to questions posed by magistrates
  • Detailed public funding assessment of Miss Hooper's costs