||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 80 (Feb)
|| EWHC 229 (Admin)
||Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court)
Hamblen LJ and Sweeney J
||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.
||14 February 2018
Judicial review - Application for judicial review - Mistake of fact
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.
- An Official transcript is the final version of the judgment prepared by shorthand writers. LexisLibrary contains all judgments from the High Court and aboveView Judgment
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases