CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 21 octobre 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sDEA336FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9C230781 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s9671CAED { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s2D581A96 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sFE89263C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.05pt; font-size:10pt } .sD3BD1682 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.05pt; font-size:10pt } .sB20C2835 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s7BB60D65 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .s97B7A20 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s70114485 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sA845BF37 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .s99668499 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; font-size:10pt } .s7A3B44D7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sAF0B4C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; font-size:10pt } .s693DCD34 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:28.95pt; font-size:10pt } .sC6DA15E2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-13.6pt; font-size:10pt } .sA0001324 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-13.6pt; font-size:10pt } .sCE76C63E { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:28.95pt; font-size:10pt } .sF52EE3D { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:10pt } .s427ABF59 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:28.95pt; font-size:10pt } .sD7BB3222 { width:1.38pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s29169624 { width:4.72pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s95652543 { width:2.5pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s65BBF621 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-17pt; font-size:10pt } .s9C624E27 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; font-size:10pt } .s527A9694 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sD3338BAA { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; font-size:10pt } .s18FECBF8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.65pt; font-size:10pt } .s954B4542 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.65pt; font-size:10pt } .s70F14DB1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.65pt; font-size:10pt } .s397ED72C { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sB3DB1E9C { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s812A4BBF { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; font-size:14pt } .s345E2258 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sC2E0339F { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD107E55B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sC124C46D { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .sC202EACC { clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s31F36575 { height:32.55pt } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s938C1CCA { padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .sA246CB12 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s898DC51C { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s9C624E26 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; font-size:11pt } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .sECFD7610 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; font-size:10pt } .s21DA24D5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s56A4E0DC { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s588BDBF1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .s9C57A56F { width:204.47pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sB94AFECD { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:center } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sF94CE700 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:2.25pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s611B73C9 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:2.25pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .sE4AC6003 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:2.25pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application nos. 29798/96 and others by Raymond LLOYD and 44 others against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21   October 2003 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   M. Pellonpää , President ,   Sir   Nicolas Bratza ,   Mrs   V. Strážnická ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   L. Garlicki ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego, judges , and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above applications lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights on various dates from 6 November 1995 to 7 July 1999, Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the applications that were originally lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights was transferred to the Court, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows:   THE FACTS The applicants are United Kingdom nationals. Raymond Lloyd (application no. 29798/96) is represented before the Court by Chamberlins Solicitors, lawyers practising in Hertfordshire; Kenneth Wood (application no. 30395/96) is represented by Mr C. McKay, a lawyer practising in Grimsby; Robert Waller (application no. 34327/96) is represented by Mr   T.   Humpage, a lawyer practising in Ipswich; G.M. (application no. 34341/96) is represented by Ms   G.   Christie, a lawyer practising in County Durham; Anthony Townsend (application no. 42039/98) is represented by Ms   D.   Still, a lawyer practising in Newcastle-upon-Tyne; Mark Wood (application no. 47441/99) is represented by Ms H. Dent, a lawyer practising in Lancashire; the remaining applicants are represented by Dicksons HMB Solicitors, lawyers practising in Stoke-on-Trent. A.     The circumstances of the cases The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. Each applicant failed to pay sums due in respect of either local taxes (community charge, council tax or non-domestic rates), or court-imposed fines. In respect of the failure to pay local taxes, the magistrates’ court had in each case determined that the applicants were liable to pay (issuing a “liability order”); in fines cases, the magistrates’ court had imposed the fine as the sentence following a criminal conviction. Each applicant fell into arrears with the payments due from them. These cases involve the enforcement proceedings in respect of their arrears in the magistrates’ court. Each applicant appeared before the court, following the issuing of an application for their committal to prison as a result of their failure to pay the sums due. At that hearing the magistrates found that the non-payment was due to the applicant’s wilful refusal or culpable neglect. As a result each applicant was sentenced to a period of imprisonment. The sentence was either imposed immediately (G.M., application no. 34341/96) or was suspended on terms that the applicant make periodic payments towards the outstanding sum. In the latter circumstances, when the applicant failed to comply with the terms imposed, a further hearing was held in the magistrates’ court at which the suspended term of imprisonment was activated. Each applicant spent a period of time in prison. Legal aid (free legal representation where the applicant did not have sufficient means to pay for it) was not available for these enforcement proceedings prior to 1 June 1997 and none of the applicants were legally represented at the hearings in front of the magistrates. Following their imprisonment, an application was made on behalf of each applicant, by way of either judicial review or case stated, which resulted in the High Court quashing the orders made by the magistrates. The majority of the applicants were released from prison on bail at the time of making their applications to the High Court. In three cases the orders of the magistrates were quashed in a judgment of the High Court. In the remaining cases the orders were quashed following the High Court’s approval of a consent order agreed between the applicants and the magistrates who had sentenced them. With one exception [Christison (56429/00)], the Court has set out the relevant facts pertaining to each applicant in the table which appears at the end of this decision. That table sets out the following information in respect of each applicant: their name and application number; whether their case involved non-payment of community charge (“CC”), council tax (“CT”), non-domestic rates (“NDR”) or fines (“F”) and the number of days which they spent in prison; whether their proceedings in the magistrates’ court took place before or after legal aid became available on 1 June 1997; and the grounds upon which the High Court quashed the orders of the magistrates. Additional relevant factual information appears in this column of the table where appropriate. Where the orders of the magistrates were quashed following a judgment, the Court has indicated that fact in the table and quoted from the relevant part of the judgment. Where the orders of the magistrates were quashed by means of a consent order, the Court has set out the terms of the consent order in full. In such cases, where the terms agreed contain obvious mistakes or misquotations from domestic case-law, the Court has inserted corrections in square brackets. However, where it is not obvious what the relevant correction should be, the Court has simply left the order in its original form. Throughout the text of this decision, where there is a reference to a specific applicant, the Court has set out the surname of the applicant followed by their application number in brackets. The words “justices” and “magistrates” are synonymous in domestic law. For reasons of space, the Court sets out the facts of the Christison (56429/00) application below. Allison CHRISTISON (56429/00) This applicant’s application for judicial review was determined by the judgment of Mr Justice Collins in R. v. Doncaster Justices ex parte Christison and Jack (13 May 1999). It is clear from that judgment that the applicant was summoned to court as a result of her failure to pay council tax. On 21 January 1998 the justices, having neither received any evidence about, nor asked any questions about, the financial outgoings of the applicant, found her to have culpably neglected to pay the council tax and made an order imposing 28 days’ imprisonment suspended on payment of £8 per month. The applicant did not make the payments in compliance with the magistrates’ order of 21 January 1998. She was therefore summoned to appear on 1 June 1998 for the magistrates’ court to determine whether the warrant of committal should be issued. The justices were told by the prosecutor that the applicant had been served with the notice of the hearing three weeks prior to the hearing. They proceeded in her absence and issued the committal warrant. She spent a total of two days in prison. The order of 21 January 1998 was quashed by Mr Justice Collins on the following ground: “[N]o proper means enquiry was carried out ... The Justices accept that there was no proper means enquiry and, therefore, the order is going to be quashed. (...) ... Justices probably carry out means enquiries every day. They must know, and if they do not, their clerks should advise them, what ought to be asked and what information ought to be obtained. They failed to do that in [this] case.” The order of 1 June 1998 was quashed by Mr Justice Collins for the following reasons: “...The time has come to try to make it abundantly clear to Justices that, in the view of this court, it is difficult to conceive that there will be circumstances which justify the making of a committal order when the defendant fails to appear before the court. It means that the Justices are unable to ascertain whether there are, in truth, reasons why payment has not been made which might excuse such payment, and furthermore, reasons why in an individual case it would be wrong to send the person immediately to prison. Alternatively, it might be proper to reduce the period of imprisonment that is considered appropriate, if any is considered appropriate. It may transpire that by the time that the question of implementing the suspended committal order is considered, the circumstances of the defendant have changed. Whereas before she might have been able to pay perhaps, through illness or whatever reason, by now she cannot. Thus, it would be wrong to commit her. Committal, I must re-emphasise, can only occur if the Justices are satisfied that there is a continuing wilful refusal or culpable neglect. The Justices have a perfectly sensible and powerful weapon available to them to deal with cases where a defendant does not attend, and that is a Warrant Not Backed for Bail. That is the means by which a person can be brought before the court and made to explain why he or she has not paid. Then the Justices will have the proper information before them to enable them to decide whether the committal is indeed correct. I cannot emphasise strongly enough my view that Justices should not, unless there are very exceptional circumstances (such as positive evidence that a defendant is refusing to attend and has expressed an unwillingness to comply with the court order) commit to prison in the absence of a defendant. ... It is true that in these cases, the Justices were told that service had been effected, but service some three weeks before is nothing to the point. Much can happen in that time ... Furthermore, there was no evidence put before the Justices to support the contention that service had been effected, and for my part I do not think it right, when someone’s liberty is at stake, for Justices to rely upon the word of the prosecutor unsupported by any evidence. A civil court which commits for contempt, which may be contempt occasioned by failure to comply with a court order, requires proof of service and that is usually done by a bailiff or whoever, indicating that service has been effected. It seems to me that it is quite wrong that Justices should put up with a lesser standard than that.” Mr Justice Collins also awarded costs against the justices on the following basis: “It is unusual for costs to be awarded against Justices who do not attend applications against them for judicial review. The principle which is applied has recently been referred to by Latham J in R. v. Newcastle-upon-Tyne Justices ex parte Devine (1998) RA 97. At page 104 of the report, the learned judge refers to a decision of the Divisional Court, R. v. York City Justices ex parte Farmery 153 JP 257, the head note of which reads: ‘... the court would be guided by the principles set out in R. v. Willesden Justices, ex parte Roberts (1960) 124 JP 336 wherein it was decided respectively: (i)   that costs would only be awarded against Justices in the rarest of circumstances when they have done something which calls for strong disapproval; and (ii) that it was the practice not to grant costs against Justices merely because they have made a mistake in law, but only if they have acted perversely or with some disregard for the elementary principles which every court ought to obey, and even then only if it was a flagrant instance.’ (...) ... In [this] case the committal took place in the absence of the defendant. This court has made it clear that Justices must be satisfied, at the very least, that there has been proper service, and, as I have said, I find it very difficult to conceive of circumstances which would justify a committal in the absence of a defendant. Thus it seems to me that the conduct of these Justices can properly be said to fall within the description that I have set out and which is referred to in the Newcastle case by Latham J.” B.     Relevant domestic law 1.     Appeal from a decision of a magistrates’ court by way of case stated By virtue of section 111 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 a party to proceedings before a magistrates’ court may “question the proceeding on the ground that it is wrong in law or is in excess of jurisdiction by applying to the justices composing the court to state a case for the opinion of the High Court on the question of law or jurisdiction involved ...”. This is known as the “case stated” procedure. Under section 113 of the 1980 Act, magistrates may grant bail to a party who applies to them to state a case; but if they refuse to do so, in cases categorised as “civil” under the domestic law, the High Court has no jurisdiction to grant bail until it is seized of some substantive proceedings to which the grant of bail can be ancillary. 2.     Judicial review According to Halsbury’s Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume 1(1) at paragraph 59: “Judicial review is the process by which the High Court exercises its supervisory jurisdiction over the proceedings and decisions of inferior courts, tribunals and other bodies or persons who carry out quasi-judicial functions or who are charged with the performance of public acts and duties ... Judicial review is concerned with reviewing not the merits of the decision in respect of which the application for judicial review is made, but the decision making process itself ... The duty of the court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern is with whether a decision making authority exceeded its powers, committed an error of law, committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal could have reached or abused its powers.” 3.     The distinction between an act of a magistrates’ court which is merely wrong in law and one which is so wrong as to be in excess of jurisdiction The principles underlying the domestic law as set out under this heading are largely as previously stated in the case-law of the Convention organs, in particular in the judgments of the Court in the cases of Benham v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 10 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 738) (“ Benham ”), and Perks and Others v. the United Kingdom nos. 25277/94 and others, 12 October 1999 (“ Perks ”). The Government submitted that this was an accurate statement of the position under domestic law. The applicants disagreed and the extent to which they did so can be seen by reference to the applicants’ arguments as set out under the below heading “Preliminary submission that Benham and Perks were wrongly decided”. In English law, orders of a magistrates’ court which are in excess of jurisdiction are void from the outset, whereas orders made within jurisdiction remain valid until set aside by a superior court. It is only in respect of the former type of error that a court can be held civilly liable in damages (under section 108 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, which replaced section 45 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 – see below). The appropriate test for whether an order of a magistrates’ court is void for lack of jurisdiction is that set out by the House of Lords in McC. v. Mullan [1984] 3 All England Reports 908. In that case magistrates had made an order sending a 14-year-old boy to a training school after a hearing at which he was not legally represented, had not applied for legal aid and had not been informed of his right so to do. The order was quashed on judicial review on the ground that, by virtue of Article 15(1) of the Treatment of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, magistrates were not permitted to pass a custodial sentence for the first time on a juvenile who was not legally represented, unless he had applied for legal aid and had been refused on grounds of means or had been informed of his right to apply for it but had refused or neglected to do so. The boy then applied for damages for false imprisonment against the magistrates. Since the case was decided prior to the enactment of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and at a time when magistrates were liable in damages for false imprisonment if they acted in excess of jurisdiction, the House of Lords was required to decide the jurisdictional question. Indeed, Lord Templeman in his judgment stated as follows: “The question to be determined on this appeal is whether the magistrates acted within their jurisdiction or without jurisdiction.” In addressing that question, Lord Bridge specifically referred to the case of Anisminic Ltd. v. the Foreign Compensation Commisison [1969] 2 Appeal Cases 147 (HL) (“ Anisminic ”) and stated as follows: “I do not believe that the novel test of excess of jurisdiction which emerges from the Anisminic case, ... however valuable it may be in ensuring that the supervisory jurisdiction of the superior courts over inferior tribunals is effective to secure compliance with the law and is not lightly to be ousted by statute, has any application whatever to the construction of s[ection]   15 of the 1964 Northern Ireland Act or s[ection] 45 of the 1979 [Justices of the Peace] Act.” In the judgment of the House of Lords, a magistrates’ court acted in excess of jurisdiction in three circumstances only: (1) if it acted without having jurisdiction over the cause, (2) if it exercised its powers in a procedural manner that involved a gross and obvious irregularity, or (3) if it made an order that had no proper foundation in law because of a failure to observe a statutory condition precedent. The instant case fell within the third limb of the rule: the magistrates were liable in damages because they had not observed the requirements of Article 15(1) of the 1976 Order. As such, they had failed to fulfil the statutory condition precedent to the imposition of the sentence of detention. During the course of his judgment, Lord Bridge commented on the jurisdiction of magistrates in conducting a criminal trial: “... once justices have duly entered upon a summary trial of a matter within their jurisdiction, only something quite exceptional occurring in the course of their proceeding to a determination can oust their jurisdiction ... [A]n error (whether of law or fact) in deciding a collateral issue on which jurisdiction depends will not do so. Nor will the absence of any evidence to support a conviction ...” Lord Bridge also said the following in relation to the second situation set out above in which a magistrates’ court acted in excess of jurisdiction: “Justices would, of course, be acting ‘without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction’ within the meaning of s[ection] 15 if, in the course of hearing a case within their jurisdiction, they were guilty of some gross and obvious irregularity of procedure, as for example if one justice absented himself for part of the hearing and relied on another to tell him what had happened during his absence, or of the rules of natural justice, as for example if the justices refused to allow the defendant to give evidence. But I would leave for determination if and when they arise other more subtle cases one might imagine in which it could successfully be contended in judicial review proceedings that a conviction was vitiated on some narrow technical ground involving a procedural irregularity or even a breach of the rules of natural justice. Such convictions, if followed by a potential trespass to person or goods, would not, in my opinion, necessarily expose the justices to liability in damages.” The final limb of the rule formulated by the House of Lords in McC. v. Mullan (that is, that magistrates exceed their jurisdiction when they make an order which has no foundation in law because of a failure to observe a statutory condition precedent) was applied by the Court of Appeal in R.   v.   Manchester City Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Davies [1989] 1 All England Reports 90, a case concerning rates (a local tax which was the predecessor to the community charge). In the course of his judgment in that case, Lord Justice O’Connor stated: “I return to the issue under s[ection] 45 of the 19[7]9 Act. This section was considered by the House of Lords in McC. v. Mullan ... That was a case from Northern Ireland but the relevant statutory provisions are the same.” Again, the issue was whether magistrates had acted in excess of jurisdiction and were therefore liable in damages for false imprisonment. In considering that question Lord Justice Neill stated as follows: “It is to be noted that in Anisminic Ltd. v. the Foreign Compensation Commission ... Lord Reid expressed the opinion that it is better not to use the term [jurisdiction] ‘except in the narrow and original sense of the tribunal being entitled to enter on the inquiry in question’. It is plain, however, that in s[ection] 45(1) ‘jurisdiction’ has a wider meaning than this original meaning.” The plaintiff had been unable to pay all of the rates for which he became liable in December 1984, and in January 1986 he failed to follow his accountant’s advice to close his business and elect bankruptcy. Applying legislation similar to regulation 41 of the Community Charge Regulations (for which, see below), the magistrates found that his failure to follow the accountant’s advice constituted culpable neglect and they committed him to prison. The Court of Appeal held that no causal connection had been established between the failure to follow the advice in 1986 and the failure to pay the rates in 1984; and that the magistrates had not properly entered into the inquiry as to whether the failure to pay was due to culpable neglect, which was required by the legislation as a statutory condition precedent to the exercise by the justices of their power to issue a warrant of commitment. They were therefore acting in excess of jurisdiction and were liable in damages. The three Appeal Court judges expressed their findings in slightly different terms. Lord Justice O’Connor observed that “they never carried out the inquiry required [by the law]”. Lord Justice Neill found that “some inquiry about the applicant’s finances was made”, but that “a clear and crucial distinction can be drawn between the inquiry required by the statute and the inquiry which was in fact carried out. The justices never examined the question whether failure to pay was due to culpable neglect ... In my judgment, the statutory inquiry was not held in the present case”; and Sir   Roger Ormrod (who dissented from the majority decision) said: “... it is quite clear that the justices carried out an inquiry into means carefully and in detail ... It is equally plain that they misdirected themselves completely ... They ... failed to realise that the question they had to decide was whether the applicant’s failure to pay his rates was ‘ due either to his wilful refusal or to his culpable neglect’ ”. 4.     Statutory provisions (a)     Provisions concerning enforcement of payment of the community charge, council tax and non-domestic rates The relevant subordinate legislation is the Community Charge (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989 (Statutory Instrument 1989/438) (“the 1989 Regulations”). The relevant provisions of regulation 29 (“application for a liability order”) are as follows: “(1)     If an amount which has fallen due ... is wholly or partly unpaid the charging authority may ... apply to a magistrates’ court for an order against the person by whom it is payable. ... (5)     The court shall make the order if it is satisfied that the sum has become payable by the defendant and has not been paid.” Regulation 39(1) provides for the seizure and sale of a debtor’s property (“levying of distress”): “Where a liability order has been made the authority which applied for the order may levy the appropriate amount by distress and sale of goods of the debtor against whom the order was made.” Regulation 41 is concerned with the committal to prison of a debtor, and provides, so far as is relevant: “(1)     Where a charging authority has sought to levy an amount by distress under regulation 39, the debtor is an individual, and it appears to the authority that no (or insufficient) goods of the debtor can be found on which to levy the amount, the authority may apply to a magistrates’ court for the issue of a warrant committing the debtor to prison. (2)     On such application being made the court shall (in the debtor’s presence) inquire as to his means and inquire whether the failure to pay which led to the liability order concerned being made against him was due to his wilful refusal or culpable neglect. (3)     If (and only if) the court is of the opinion that his failure was due to his wilful refusal or culpable neglect it may if it thinks fit - (a)     issue a warrant of commitment against the debtor, or (b)     fix a term of imprisonment and postpone the issue of the warrant until such time and on such conditions (if any) as the court thinks just. ... (7)     The order in the warrant shall be that the debtor be imprisoned for a time specified in the warrant which shall not exceed 3 months, unless the amount stated in the warrant is sooner paid ... .” Regulation 42 makes further provision in respect of committal to prison. It provides, in relevant part, as follows: “(2)     Where an application under regulation 41 has been made, and after the making of the inquiries mentioned in paragraph (2) of that regulation no warrant is issued or term of imprisonment fixed, the court may remit all or part of the appropriate amount mentioned in regulation 39(2) with respect to which the application related. (3)     Where an application under regulation 41 has been made but no warrant is issued or term of imprisonment fixed, the application may be renewed (except so far as regards any sum remitted under paragraph (2)) on the ground that the circumstances of the debtor have changed.” Regulations 47 and 48 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (Statutory Instrument 1992/613) and regulations 16 and 17 of the Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) Regulations 1989 (Statutory Instrument 1989/1058), which concern the commitment to prison of a person for failure to pay council tax and non-domestic rates respectively, are in similar terms to regulations 41 and 42 of the 1989 Regulations. (b)     Provisions concerning enforcement of payment of fines Sections 77(2) and 82 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 read, in relevant part, as follows: “77.     Postponement of issue of warrant. (2)     Where a magistrates’ court has power to issue a warrant of commitment under this Part of this Act, it may, if it thinks it expedient to do so, fix a term of imprisonment ... and postpone the issue of the warrant until such time and on such conditions, if any, as the court thinks just.” “82.     Restriction on power to impose imprisonment for default (3)     Where on the occasion of the offender’s conviction a magistrates’ court does not issue a warrant of commitment for a default in paying any ... sum [adjudged to be paid following conviction] ... or fix a term of imprisonment under ... section 77(2) which is to be served by him in the event of any such default, it shall not thereafter issue a warrant of commitment for any such default or for want of sufficient distress to satisfy such a sum unless - (...) (b)     The court has since the conviction inquired into his means in his presence on at least one occasion. (4)     Where a magistrates’ court is required by subsection (3) above to inquire into a person’s means, the court may not on the occasion of the inquiry or at any time thereafter issue a warrant of commitment for a default in paying any such sum unless - (...) (b)     The court (i)     is satisfied that the default is due to the offender’s wilful refusal or culpable neglect; and (ii)     has considered or tried all other methods of enforcing payment of the sum and it appears to the court that they are inappropriate or unsuccessful.” Section 82(4A) lists the methods of enforcing payment that are mentioned in the above-cited subsection 82(4)(b)(ii). One such method that is listed in section 82(4A) is the imposition of a ‘fines supervision order’ under section 88 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act. Section 82 continues: “(5)     After the occasion of an offender’s conviction by a magistrates’ court, the court shall not, unless - (a)     the court has previously fixed a term of imprisonment under section 77(2) above which is to be served by the offender in the event of a default in paying a sum adjudged to be paid by the conviction; (...) issue a warrant of commitment for a default in paying the sum or fix such a term except at a hearing at which the offender is present. (5A)     A magistrates’ court may not issue a warrant of commitment under subsection   (5) above at a hearing at which the offender is not present unless the clerk of the court has first served on the offender a notice in writing stating that the court intends to hold a hearing to consider whether to issue such a warrant and giving the reason why the court so intends. (...) (5F)     A notice under subsection (5A) above to be served on any person shall be deemed to be served on that person if it is sent by registered post or the recorded delivery service addressed to him at his last known address, notwithstanding that the notice is returned as undelivered or is for any other reason not received by that person. (6)     Where a magistrates’ court issues a warrant of commitment on the ground that one of the conditions mentioned in subsection (1) or (4) above is satisfied, it shall state that fact, specifying the ground, in the warrant.” (c)     Restrictions on imposing custodial sentences on persons under the age of 21 Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 sets out provisions in relation to the custody and detention of persons under 21 years of age. Section 1 reads, in relevant part, as follows: “1.     General restriction on custodial sentences (5)     No court shall commit a person under 21 years of age to be detained under section 9 below [Detention of persons aged 18-20 for default or contempt] unless it is of the opinion that no other method of dealing with him is appropriate; (...) (5A)     Where a magistrates’ court commits a person under 21 years of age to be detained under section 9 below, it shall - (a)   state in open court the reason for its opinion that no other method of dealing with him is appropriate; and (b)   cause that reason to be specified in the warrant of commitment and to be entered in the register.” Section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 reads, in relevant part, as follows: “3.     Restriction on imposing custodial sentences on persons under 21 not legally represented. - (1)     A magistrates’ court on summary conviction or the Crown Court on committal for sentence or on conviction on indictment shall not - (a)     pass a sentence of detention in a young offender institution (...) in respect of or on a person who is not legally represented in that court, unless either   - (i)   he applied for legal aid and the application was refused on the ground that it did not appear his means were such that he required assistance; or (ii)   having been informed of his right to apply for legal aid and had the opportunity to do so, he refused or failed to apply.” Regulation 42(7) of the 1989 Regulations states that the above sections of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 apply to proceedings under regulation 41 of the 1989 Regulations.     5.     Case-law Among the further case-law referred to in the judgments and consent orders of the High Court, and/or referred to by the parties in their submissions, was the following: (a)     The inquiry into the debtor’s means and circumstances (i)     General In R. v. Hyndburn Justices ex parte Derrick Long (18 October 1993), Mr   Justice Schiemann stated as follows in a case concerning the non-payment of the community charge: “ ... It is important when dealing with the liberty of citizens only to set in train the process of imprisonment when all the requirements imposed by law have been carefully considered. It is important to note that, in this field as in the case of suspended sentences of imprisonment imposed pursuant to the criminal law, the same degree of care must be exercised in the case of a suspended penalty as in the case of an immediate penalty.” (ii)     Failure to hold a proper means inquiry In R. v. Woking Justices ex parte Johnstone [1942] 2 King’s Bench 248, the Divisional Court, in examining legislation in similar terms to the 1989 Regulations, emphasised that, in order to commit to prison, the justices, following their inquiry, had to be of the opinion that the failure to pay was due either to wilful refusal or culpable neglect. In R. v. Stafford Justices ex parte Shaun Thomas Johnson (16 March 1995) Mr Justice Laws stated as follows: “ ... The means inquiry required by regulation 41(2) is of great importance because without it the Justices plainly cannot properly arrive at a conclusion as to whether the failure to pay had been due to the debtor’s wilful refusal or culpable neglect. A means inquiry, thus, is at the centre of the enforcement procedure which is laid down by these Regulations. These Justices did not, in truth, embark upon a proper means inquiry at all. It follows that their order committing the applicant to prison is entirely vitiated.” In Meara v. DPP (25 November 1998), a case involving the non-payment of fines, Lord Justice Rose stated that: “... an essential prerequisite to a finding of culpable neglect must be the holding of a full means inquiry”. (iii)     Failure to examine each liability order separately In R. v. Leeds Justices ex parte Kennett [1996] Rating and Valuation Reporter (“RVR”) 53, an order committing the applicant to prison for non-payment of community charge following the issue of three liability orders in respect of non-payment for the years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93 was quashed as a full means inquiry in respect of each liability order had not been made under regulation 41(2) of the 1989 Regulations. Mr Justice Owen stated as follows during the course of his judgment: “It is apparent from the wording of the Regulations that each liability order is to be considered separately and in respect of each liability order there has to be, as I see it, a decision as to whether there was wilful refusal or culpable neglect shown.” The above conclusion was followed by Mr Justice Dyson in R. v Durham City Justices ex parte Fleming [1997] RVR 244 at 246; by Mr Justice Keene in R. v. Gloucestershire Justices ex parte Daldry [2001] RVR 242 at 243; and by Mr Justice Gage in R. v. Sheffield Justices ex parte Broadhurst [2001] RVR 245 at 246. (iv)     The burden of proof In R. v. South Tyneside Justices ex parte Stuart Daniel Martin (31   July   1995), Mr Justice Sedley stated the following in respect of the burden of proof: “... It is necessary in my judgment for Justices to be satisfied not merely on the balance of probability but so that they are sure, following a proper means inquiry, that the debtor’s failure to pay has been due to his or her wilful refusal or culpable neglect to pay, before they can issue a warrant of commitment or fix a term of imprisonment and postpone the issue of the warrant. ... If I am wrong in this, and if the proper standard is a civil standard, what is at stake for the individual makes it inescapable that only the highest standard of probability is commensurate with the exercise of the power of committal or of fixing a term of imprisonment. The Justices, on advice, applied neither such standard. In my judgment a bare balance of probability is not a sufficient standard and their decisions of 6th April 1993 and 27th July 1993 to fix terms of imprisonment and postpone the issue of warrants of committal on grounds of culpable neglect cannot therefore stand.” Mr Justice Sedley concluded as follows: “... To be open to criticism for the disposal of slender resources is one thing; to be guilty of culpable neglect in the disposal of them is another. In my judgment the first fixing of the term of imprisonment and the postponement of the warrant were done after a means inquiry too perfunctory to constitute compliance with Regulation 41(2). The fixing of a separate term of imprisonment and the postponement of the warrant in July 1993, although it followed a much fuller inquiry, was again carried out on the basis of data which were not capable by themselves of founding a finding of culpable neglect to pay, whether on the lower standard of proof that was applied or on the higher standard which, as I have held, ought to have been applied. Accordingly the applicant succeeds in his application to quash both decisions of the Justices”. In the case of R. v. Mid Herts Justices ex parte Cox (19 October 1995) Mr Justice Laws expressly agreed with what Mr Justice Sedley had said in relation to the burden of proof in the above Martin case. (b)     The consideration of alternatives to imprisonment (i)     Failure to pay local taxes In R. v. the Alfreton Magistrates ex parte Darren Gratton (25   November   1993) the magistrates had come to the conclusion that they could not consider attaching the applicant’s liability to pay his community charge to his income support as a viable alternative to prison. Mr Justice MacPherson held that, in so concluding, the magistrates were “plainly wrong” and that, as such, there was a “fundamental flaw” in the case. In considering whether to order costs against the magistrates, he concluded: “I am wholly unable to find that there has been any perverse or outrageous conduct of any kind in this case. These are tricky cases. The law has been evolving in the last year or so.” He continued: “... Community charge liability should only be visited with prison (if I may use that shorthand expression) if there is no other way in which the money can be extracted. Prison is not to be used as a big stick or primarily as punishment but as a means of extracting the liability.” Mr Justice MacPherson stated that there may also have been a flaw in the case because the applicant was under 21 years of age at the time at which he was sentenced and the magistrates did not fulfil their requirement publicly to state that there was no alternative but prison in this case. However, he regarded it as unnecessary to conclude the case on that ground in the light of his earlier finding. Lord Justice Kennedy stated in R. v. Wolverhampton Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Mould [1992] RA 309: “...the power to commit to prison which is to be found in reg. 41 is plainly intended to be used as a weap