AB, R (on the application of) v X Crown Court

AB, R (on the application of) v X Crown Court

The judge erred in law by refusing to recuse himself from hearing the wasted costs application in circumstances where the claimant intended to challenge the reasonableness of the judge's own decision to discharge the jury, thereby raising a real possibility of bias. The High Court has jurisdiction to review the refusal to recuse, as the wasted costs jurisdiction is collateral to the trial on indictment and does not fall within the statutory exclusion. The decision to refuse recusal is quashed and the wasted costs application must be heard by a different judge.

Parties
Claimant: AB; Defendant: X Crown Court; Interested Party: Crown (Revenue & Customs Prosecution Office)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Judicial Review of Refusal to Recuse and for Particulars
Outcome
Application for judicial review allowed
Legal Topics
Recusal of Judge, Wasted Costs Orders, Bias, Jurisdiction of High Court Over Crown Court
Judicial Review Criminal Law Costs Recusal of Judge Wasted Costs Orders Bias Jurisdiction of High Court Over Crown Court

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

Parties

AB

Claimant

X Crown Court

Defendant

Crown (Revenue & Customs Prosecution Office)

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Judicial Review of Refusal to Recuse and for Particulars

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review a Crown Court judge's refusal to recuse himself from a wasted costs application
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in law in refusing to recuse himself
  3. 3 What relief should be granted if the refusal was unlawful

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in law by refusing to recuse himself from hearing the wasted costs application in circumstances where the claimant intended to challenge the reasonableness of the judge's own decision to discharge the jury, thereby raising a real possibility of bias. The High Court has jurisdiction to review the refusal to recuse, as the wasted costs jurisdiction is collateral to the trial on indictment and does not fall within the statutory exclusion. The decision to refuse recusal is quashed and the wasted costs application must be heard by a different judge.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review allowed

Orders

  • Permission to apply for judicial review granted
  • Decision of Judge D refusing to recuse himself quashed