Croke, R (on the application of) v Leeds Crown Court

Croke, R (on the application of) v Leeds Crown Court

The application for permission to apply for judicial review is refused because the Crown Court gave careful consideration to the evidence, rejected the claimant's account, and 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 conducted as a rehearing and the claimant had the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.

Parties
Claimant: Croke; Defendant: Leeds Crown Court
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Permission to Apply for Judicial Review (renewed Oral Hearing)
Outcome
Permission to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Assault by Beating, Battery, Defences (mistake, Automatism, Self Defence), Article 6 ECHR, Procedure on Appeal, Refusal to State a Case
Criminal Law Judicial Review Human Rights Assault by Beating Battery Defences (mistake, Automatism, Self Defence) Article 6 ECHR Procedure on Appeal +1 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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Croke

Claimant

Leeds Crown Court

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Permission to Apply for Judicial Review (renewed Oral Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown Court erred in refusing to state a case for appeal
  2. 2 Whether the Crown Court failed to consider the defences of mistake, non-insane automatism, and self-defence
  3. 3 Whether there was a breach of Article 6 ECHR (right to a fair trial) in the conduct of the appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The application for permission to apply for judicial review is refused because the Crown Court gave careful consideration to the evidence, rejected the claimant's account, and 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 conducted as a rehearing and the claimant had the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.

Court Disposition

Permission to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Transcript of the judgment to be produced at public expense