Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Application to reopen failed appeal in anonymisation proceedings refused as no grounds for review established
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The Court of Appeal refused an application to revisit its prior decision rejecting an extension of time to appeal a High Court order that had refused the anonymisation of the applicant in ongoing criminal proceedings. The court found that the applicant, a litigant in person, had not satisfied the high threshold for reopening a perfected appellate judgment, as he failed to show any substantive grounds justifying a review, nor any objective basis for a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court addressed and rejected arguments related to alleged discriminatory application of court practice directions, improper judicial conduct, electronic judgment delivery, and supposed inconsistencies in prior treatment of a similar matter. Ultimately, the court held that the applicant had no entitlement to have the prior decision revisited, as no breach of constitutional rights or injustice was established.
application to reopen final judgment – extension of time to appeal – anonymisation order – public order offence – District Court – High Court – Court of Appeal – judicial review – recusal application – objectively sufficient grounds – impartial tribunal – constitutional rights – Practice Direction CA 14 – judgment delivery by electronic means – EU law (Article 19.1 TEU) – inherent jurisdiction – procedural fairness – Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC)
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
