Securiplan Plc & Ors, R (on the application of) v Security Industry Authority & Anor [2008] EWHC 1762 (Admin) (25 July 2008)
The Security Industry Authority has the power to prosecute offences under the Private Security Industry Act 2001 because prosecution is incidental or conducive to its statutory functions, particularly licensing and inspection, under section 1(3). However, the High Court's jurisdiction is excluded by section 29(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 at this stage, and permission for judicial review is refused due to delay and discretion.
- Citation
- [2008] EWHC 1762 (Admin)
- Parties
- Claimant: Securiplan PLC; Claimant: Phillip Ullmann; Claimant: Sabrewatch Ltd; Claimant: Luke Lucas; Defendant: Security Industry Authority; Interested Party: Anthony Hutchins
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 25 July 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Permission and Substantive Hearing (rolled Up)
- Outcome
- Permission for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Statutory Interpretation, Regulator's Power to Prosecute, Judicial Review, Delay, Jurisdiction, Discretion
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Securiplan PLC
Claimant
Phillip Ullmann
Claimant
Sabrewatch Ltd
Claimant
Luke Lucas
Claimant
Security Industry Authority
Defendant
Anthony Hutchins
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission and Substantive Hearing (rolled Up)
Legal Issues
- 1 Does the Security Industry Authority have statutory power to prosecute offences under the Private Security Industry Act 2001?
- 2 Is the High Court's jurisdiction excluded by section 29(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981?
- 3 Should permission for judicial review be refused due to delay and discretion?
Ratio Decidendi
The Security Industry Authority has the power to prosecute offences under the Private Security Industry Act 2001 because prosecution is incidental or conducive to its statutory functions, particularly licensing and inspection, under section 1(3). However, the High Court's jurisdiction is excluded by section 29(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 at this stage, and permission for judicial review is refused due to delay and discretion.
Court Disposition
Permission for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Orders
- Permission to apply for judicial review refused.
- Application dismissed on merits, jurisdiction, discretion, and delay.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment