Malcolm Huntley Potier, R (on the application of) v Southwark Crown Court

Malcolm Huntley Potier, R (on the application of) v Southwark Crown Court

Permission for judicial review is refused because the Judge acted lawfully and reasonably in revoking the direction for cross-examination, the Crown Court Rules confer broad powers to vary or revoke directions, and the Claimant’s arguments have no realistic prospect of success.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Malcolm Huntley Potier; Defendant: Southwark Crown Court; Interested Party: Metropolitan Police Commissioner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission
Outcome
Permission for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Violent Offender Order, Hearsay Evidence, Case Management Directions, Judicial Review, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Violent Offender Order Hearsay Evidence Case Management Directions Judicial Review Appeal Procedure

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malcolm Huntley Potier

Claimant

Southwark Crown Court

Defendant

Metropolitan Police Commissioner

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown Court had power to direct witnesses to attend for cross-examination on a section 106 appeal
  2. 2 Whether the Judge had power to revoke the previous direction for cross-examination
  3. 3 Whether the Judge acted lawfully and reasonably in revoking the direction

Ratio Decidendi

Permission for judicial review is refused because the Judge acted lawfully and reasonably in revoking the direction for cross-examination, the Crown Court Rules confer broad powers to vary or revoke directions, and the Claimant’s arguments have no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Permission for judicial review refused