Croke, R (on the application of) v Leeds Crown Court [2013] EWHC 3305 (Admin) (03 October 2013)

Croke, R (on the application of) v Leeds Crown Court [2013] EWHC 3305 (Admin) (03 October 2013)

The application for permission to apply for judicial review is refused because the Crown Court considered the evidence with care, rejected the claimant's account, and accepted the prosecution witnesses' version. The defences of mistake, non-insane automatism, and self-defence did not arise on the facts as found....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3305 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Croke; Defendant: Leeds Crown Court
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Renewed Application for Permission
Outcome
Permission to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Assault by Beating, Judicial Review, Article 6 ECHR, Automatism, Mistake, Self Defence
Criminal Law Administrative Law Human Rights Assault by Beating Judicial Review Article 6 ECHR Automatism Mistake +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Croke

Claimant

Leeds Crown Court

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Renewed Application for Permission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown Court erred in refusing to state a case after dismissing appeal against conviction for assault
  2. 2 Whether the Crown Court failed to consider defences of mistake, non-insane automatism, and self-defence
  3. 3 Whether there was a breach of Article 6 ECHR in the appeal procedure

Ratio Decidendi

The application for permission to apply for judicial review is refused because the Crown Court considered the evidence with care, rejected the claimant's account, and accepted the prosecution witnesses' version. The defences of mistake, non-insane automatism, and self-defence did not arise on the facts as found. There was no arguable breach of Article 6 ECHR as the appeal was a rehearing and the claimant had the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.

Court Disposition

Permission to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Transcript of judgment to be produced at public expense