Hamill v The Chelmsford Magistrates' Court & Anor (Rev 1)
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE AIKENS
- MR JUSTICE BEAN
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Mr. Desmond Hamill's appeal for judicial review was based on a decision to continue his indefinite notification requirements under the SOA 2003 by the Chief Constable of Essex Police. The Deputy Superintendent had made the decision, and issues arose about the appropriateness of this delegation. The court found that delegating such duties was lawful. However, the magistrates' court made errors in applying the correct legal standards and failed to consider all pertinent factors, leading to the decision being quashed and remitted for a new hearing.
Judgment
Lord Justice Aikens:
This is the judgment of the court to which both of us have contributed.
I. Synopsis
There is before the court a claim for judicial review of a decision of a bench of the South Essex magistrates on 5 June 2013 at Chelmsford. They dismissed an appeal by Mr Desmond Hamill against the decision of the Chief Constable of Essex Police, made on 25 October 2012 but only notified on 14 January 2013, that Mr Hamill should continue to be subject to the notification requirements set out in Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 , (“SOA 2003”), as amended. The claimant had been convicted of rape in 1994. Since the Sex Offenders Act 1997 had come into force, he was obliged, as a result of his conviction and sentence, to notify the police of his address and other details and had to do so for “an indefinite period”. After amendments to the SOA 2003 came into force in 2012, the claimant applied to the Chief Constable under section 91B of the amended SOA 2003 to be relieved of his obligations of notification. Detective Superintendent Wilson, acting on behalf of the Chief Constable, determined that the claimant should not be. The claimant’s appeal to the magistrates was dismissed. Permission to bring the claim for judicial review was granted by Green J on 9 January 2014. At the first hearing on 9 May 2014 the claimant was represented by Mr Ian Brownhill. Neither the defendant, the Chelmsford Magistrates Court, nor the Interested Party, the Chief Constable of Essex Police, appeared or was represented at that hearing.
At the end of Mr Brownhill’s argument on 9 May 2014 we announced that we would grant judicial review, quash the decision of the Magistrates’ Court of 5 June 2013 and remit the matter to another Magistrates’ Court to hear a fresh appeal. We said that we would hand down our reasons at a later date.
At the hearing on 9 May an issue arose as a result of questions to Mr Brownhill from the court. This concerned the fact that the relevant determination had been signed, and so apparently made, not by the Chief Constable of Essex Police but by Detective Superintendent Ewen Wilson. We asked whether Mr Brownhill wished to take the point, adumbrated in the grounds of appeal to the Magistrates’ Court, that this was not in accordance with the provision in section 91C of the SOA 2003 (as amended) that the decision should be taken by the “relevant chief officer of police”. We said that if Mr Brownhill did take that point it was a matter that we