[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Purnell, R (On the Application Of) v Snaresbrook Crown Court [2009] EWHC 1861 (Admin) (02 July 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/1861.html Cite as: [2009] EWHC 1861 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		2nd July 2009

1. MR JUSTICE BURTON: This has been the hearing of an application by Mr Purnell for permission to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Snaresbrook Crown Court. It has been heard in the absence of either the Snaresbrook Crown Court or the CPS. There was a direction by His Honour Judge Thornton QC that the claimant serve the defendant, and he has produced documents to show that he has done so, but it appears that the Crown Court said that it did not appreciate there was a hearing today. One way or the other, this case has gone forward in their absence. Therefore it may be that there is a complete answer to the case that has put forward by Mr Purnell, which is otherwise a very powerful one, to challenge the decision in question.
2. What he has explained to me today is that he was sentenced in his absence by the Havering Magistrates in respect of four offences under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, with regard to the keeper of the vehicle failing to supply information as to the driver's identity. Notice, it is asserted, was given in respect of each of those four occasions, to an address which was the address of the registered owner, Mr Purnell, as recorded on the log book, namely: 79 Deer Park Gardens, Mitcham, Surrey CR4 4DZ.
3. If that was the basis upon which the case was put forward then, if they were received by him he ought to have responded to them. Subject to any defence of reasonable diligence, he would have been guilty of failure to answer had he not done so. He tells me that, as he is the only driver, in practice, of the vehicle, he would be likely to have answered that he was the driver on each of the occasions, although clearly, as he would need to have explained to him what the events were that underlay each incident, it may be that he would have had a defence to each. But this is not one of those occasions where had he received the notices he would have denied being the driver.
4. As I have indicated, his case is that he never received any of those notices. He is rarely at the premises. He lives at other premises, including 823 Fulham Road, London SW6 5HQ, and living at the Deer Park Gardens premises is a Mr Okoturo, who has taken the trouble to come to court today, as he did to the Snaresbrook Crown Court, to contend that the first he knew of any of these matters, on receiving and checking post on behalf of the claimant from time to time, was when contacted subsequently in respect of an arrest warrant. An arrest warrant did arrive addressed to Mr Purnell at 79 Deer Park Gardens dated 26th March, which was 16 days after the matters had been heard in Mr Purnell's absence by the Magistrates' Court.
5. When he received the notification of the arrest warrant, Mr Okoturo did contact the police to say he was unable to contact Mr Purnell and that Mr Purnell was not living at the property at the time.
6. In fact, what then occurred is that Mr Purnell was arrested somewhere in East London when he was driving in the vehicle, still completely ignorant of the sentences which had been imposed on him on 10th March. He was arrested without backing for bail, kept in custody for the whole day and eventually taken into the Magistrates' Court where, notwithstanding the pleas of the duty solicitor, the Magistrates were not prepared to reconsider the matter and indicated that he would have to appeal to the Crown Court.
7. The sentences that had been imposed by the Magistrates on the convictions in his absence on 10th March appear to me (unenlightened as I am, not sitting in the Magistrates' Court, and only dealing with more serious criminal matters) to be very savage. They were, in respect of each offence, a fine of £375 plus a top-up fine of £15 in respect of HMVS victim surcharge, and £280 towards the cost of the prosecution, a total of £1,795. Even more extraordinary, in respect of a matter dealt with in the absence of the claimant, was that on each of the four offences of failing to supply information, 12 months' disqualification was imposed concurrent. Mr Purnell has informed me that in addition there were six points on his licence in respect of each of the four offences, although there is no sign of that on the document that I have been shown.
8. The Magistrates' Court subsequently agreed to stay the disqualification orders and the fines until the hearing of this appeal. At the appeal in the Snaresbrook Crown Court, the claimant gave evidence to the effect that I have summarised, namely that he had not received the notices, and he indicated that outside court was Mr Okoturo, who was willing to give evidence to support his case. I am informed (and I await the account to be given by the Crown Court) that he was told that Mr Okoturo had been irresponsible, and that it would not assist to hear evidence from him. It appears clear that Mr Okoturo (though present) was thus not called. I can think of no basis on which Mr Okoturo's evidence should not otherwise have been admitted as plainly relevant to the case that the claimant was putting forward, that he had not received the notices. In any event, he was not called and the appellant was convicted.
9. Notwithstanding, he tells me, that there purported to be reconsideration of the sentences, the sentence appeal too was dismissed. It appears to me that the imposition of sentences of 12 months' disqualification and very heavy fines and costs would itself be a matter for potential reconsideration by this Court as an error of law in relation to this appeal, quite apart from the question of the conviction.
10. It is that history which, as I have indicated, comes from Mr Purnell, supported before me today (though neither of them have given evidence on oath, of course) by Mr Okoturo, and unanswered by the defendants, which has caused me to grant permission. I also have concluded that, just as the disqualification was suspended as between the Magistrates' Court and the Crown Court, so too it should be suspended between this hearing and the hearing of the application for judicial review, at which one of the matters to be considered will be whether any disqualification period, certainly one of this kind of length, was appropriate. Mr Purnell has already served some period of disqualification simply by virtue of the time this matter has taken to come before this court.
11. In those circumstances, I make the order that is now recorded by the court and grant permission.
12. As I have indicated, I think this judgment should be transcribed.
13. MR PURNELL: Thank you, your Lordship.
14. MR JUSTICE BURTON: You had better not drive the car until you have an order in your hand from the court saying that the disqualification is suspended. Otherwise if you were stopped by anybody today, whether anyone would believe you is a different matter. I suspect there will be a record somewhere. You might find yourself being picked up again. How soon can we have a court order? If you were willing to stay, you could get it this afternoon. Could it be ready by 4 o'clock?
15. THE CLERK OF THE COURT: Yes, my Lord.
16. MR JUSTICE BURTON: Can you indicate to Mr Purnell where he goes to pick up the order and you can pick it up at some stage before 4 o'clock.
17. MR PURNELL: Is there a transcript of the hearing?
18. MR JUSTICE BURTON: That will be forthcoming. Where would you like it sent to, Mr Purnell?
19. MR PURNELL: Try and send it to Deer Park Gardens.
20. MR JUSTICE BURTON: It will be a bit of time before it gets there. As long as you have it before the hearing.
21. MR PURNELL: Unknown to me, which I will bring up in the judicial review, I explained all this situation to my neighbour and, unknown to me, he actually did not receive any mail from December 2008 to February 2009.
22. MR JUSTICE BURTON: Well, that is something that you should obviously put in your written statement.
23. MR PURNELL: Thank you, your Lordship.
24. MR JUSTICE BURTON: Thank you.