Lipinski, R (on the application of) v Wolverhampton Crown Court

Lipinski, R (on the application of) v Wolverhampton Crown Court

The High Court, assuming jurisdiction, found that the Crown Court judge had substantial material to justify the refusal of bail to both applicants due to the risk of interference with the course of justice, including the attempt to bribe a juror and the applicants' connections. The judge's decision was not perverse or unreasonable, and the correct legal test was applied.

Parties
Claimant: Steven Lipinski; Claimant: Craig Mathew Johnson; Defendant: Wolverhampton Crown Court; Interested Party: HM Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Permission and Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Applications for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Bail, Jurisdiction of High Court, Interference With Justice, Carousel Fraud
Criminal Law Judicial Review Bail Jurisdiction of High Court Interference With Justice Carousel Fraud

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steven Lipinski

Claimant

Craig Mathew Johnson

Claimant

Wolverhampton Crown Court

Defendant

HM Revenue and Customs

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Permission and Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to judicially review Crown Court decisions refusing bail in the context of a trial on indictment
  2. 2 Whether the Crown Court judge's refusal of bail was unreasonable or perverse

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court, assuming jurisdiction, found that the Crown Court judge had substantial material to justify the refusal of bail to both applicants due to the risk of interference with the course of justice, including the attempt to bribe a juror and the applicants' connections. The judge's decision was not perverse or unreasonable, and the correct legal test was applied.

Court Disposition

Applications for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to apply for judicial review granted to both applicants
  • Substantive applications for judicial review refused