Representation of Syvret [2013] JRC 263 (10 December 2013)

Representation of Syvret [2013] JRC 263 (10 December 2013)

The Deputy Bailiff refused to sign the document as an order of justice or grant leave for judicial review because it failed to identify proper defendants, contained scandalous and vexatious material, and did not comply with procedural requirements. The applicant was invited to amend and resubmit the document to comply with the rules and clarify the claims.

Citation
[2013] JRC 263
Parties
Applicant: Stuart Syvret; Putative Defendant: Her Majesty's Prison La Moye; Putative Defendant: Her Majesty's Prison La Moye Board of Visitors; Putative Defendant: Home Affairs Minister
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
10 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review and Order of Justice / Preliminary/procedural Determination
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Access to Justice, Conflict of Interest, Strike Out Applications, Prisoner Rights
Civil Procedure Human Rights Prison Law Judicial Review Access to Justice Conflict of Interest Strike Out Applications Prisoner Rights

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stuart Syvret

Applicant

Her Majesty's Prison La Moye

Putative Defendant

Her Majesty's Prison La Moye Board of Visitors

Putative Defendant

Home Affairs Minister

Putative Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review and Order of Justice / Preliminary/procedural Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Deputy Bailiff should sign an order of justice presented by a litigant in person
  2. 2 Whether the application for judicial review complies with procedural requirements
  3. 3 Whether there is a conflict of interest requiring recusal

Ratio Decidendi

The Deputy Bailiff refused to sign the document as an order of justice or grant leave for judicial review because it failed to identify proper defendants, contained scandalous and vexatious material, and did not comply with procedural requirements. The applicant was invited to amend and resubmit the document to comply with the rules and clarify the claims.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Refusal to sign the document as an order of justice in its current form
  • Refusal of leave to proceed with judicial review