Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2018] All ER (D) 80 (Feb)
Neutral Citation: [2018] EWHC 229 (Admin)
Court: Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court)
Judge:

Hamblen LJ and Sweeney J

Representation Simon Heptonstall (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the claimant in the first case.
  John Dye (instructed by Warburtons) for the claimant in the second case.
  Duncan Atkinson QC (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the interested party in the second case.
Judgment Dates: 14 February 2018

Catchwords

Judicial review - Application for judicial review - Mistake of fact

The Case

Judicial review Application for judicial review. There was no doubt that mistake of material fact leading to unfairness was available as a ground of judicial review in the first case, as all five requisite conditions were met. The Divisional Court further held that, in the specific circumstances of the second case, as they had been believed to be at the time, the justices had been entitled, in the exercise of their discretion, to grant the adjournment, such that it was not necessary to consider whether the five conditions were met.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.