- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Bunting, Application for Judicial Review
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant was an elected member of Belfast City Council from May 2015 until May 2019 and sought re-election in May 2023. However, a decision by the Commissioner’s Assistant Commissioner on 6 March 2023 imposed a three-year disqualification period on the appellant, preventing re-election. This decision followed an investigation and adjudication process initiated by the Commissioner in June 2019 concerning alleged breaches of the Councillor’s Code of Conduct. A hearing was scheduled for February 2023, which the appellant sought to adjourn but was unsuccessful. The appellant challenged the decision by way of judicial review in the High Court, which granted leave but dismissed the substantive application. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the statutory appeal under section 59(13) of the Local Government (Northern Ireland) Act 2014 provides an adequate alternative remedy to judicial review for procedural unfairness claims.
- Whether it was procedurally unfair to proceed with the adjudication hearing without oral representations from the appellant in person.
- Whether the Assistant Commissioner failed to fully examine the reasons for the appellant’s adjournment application.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The statutory grounds of appeal are primarily directed at the final decision and do not effectively address procedural unfairness, making judicial review necessary.
- The appellant attempted unsuccessfully to attend the hearing remotely and sought an adjournment, which was not facilitated, rendering the decision-making process irrational and unfair.
- The Commissioner did not adequately consider the appellant’s lack of legal representation, fear of the complainant, absence of hearing papers, and the principle of equality of arms.
- The Commissioner failed to properly assess the seriousness of the misconduct complaint when adjudicating the adjournment request.
Respondent's Arguments
- The procedure was not unfair or unlawful; the appellant’s adjournment request was made at a late stage but was considered.
- Attempts were made to contact the appellant, including offering in-person attendance or remote participation, but the appellant chose not to attend based on legal advice.
- The Assistant Commissioner reasonably considered factors such as the length and history of proceedings, the complainant’s attendance, the appellant’s written submissions prepared with legal assistance, and absence of medical evidence.
- The decision to proceed without adjournment was appropriate given the circumstances and the appellant’s choice not to participate.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| General Medical Council v Ateogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162 | Guidance on discretion to proceed with hearings in absence of a party and the importance of fairness. | Used to illustrate the careful exercise of discretion in proceeding without the appellant’s presence and the importance of fairness in such decisions. |
| R v Hayward and Others [2001] EWCA Crim 68 | Checklist of factors to consider when deciding to proceed in absence of a defendant or their legal representatives. | Referenced as part of the legal framework for assessing fairness and discretion in absence cases. |
| R v Jones [2002] UKHL 5 | Emphasis on exercising discretion with great caution and ensuring overall fairness when proceeding in absence. | Supported the principle that seriousness of offence is not determinative and fairness is paramount. |
| Tait v Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons [2003] UKPC 34 | Consideration of adjournment applications on grounds of ill health and procedural fairness. | Applied to distinguish regulatory proceedings from criminal trials and to justify proceeding where practitioner fails to engage. |
| Crown Prosecution Service v Picton [2006] EWHC 1108 | Principles guiding the exercise of discretion to grant or refuse adjournments in criminal proceedings. | Emphasized the need for judicial exercise of discretion balancing interests of parties and public. |
| R v Hereford Magistrates' Court ex parte Rowlands [1998] QB 110 | Framework for appellate interference with adjournment decisions only in cases causing substantial unfairness. | Adopted to reinforce high threshold for overturning adjournment refusals. |
| Re DPP’s Application [2007] NIQB 3 | Importance of decision-maker being fully informed in adjournment decisions. | Reproduced in appendix and relied on to underline procedural fairness requirements. |
| Galo v Bombardier Shorts [2023] NICA 50 | Test for reviewing refusal of adjournment is whether it unfairly deprived litigant of a fair hearing. | Applied as the governing legal principle for assessing fairness in refusal of adjournment applications. |
| Smith v Parole Board [2005] UKHL 1 | No absolute right to oral representations at common law or under Article 6 ECHR. | Supported the court’s conclusion that the appellant had no absolute right to oral adjournment submissions. |
| Jones v Commissioner for Social Care Inspection [2004] EWCA Civ 1713 | Burden and standard of proof in regulatory proceedings. | Referenced to clarify burden of proof on the regulator and standard of balance of probabilities. |
| B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35 | Standard of proof in civil proceedings. | Supported the application of balance of probabilities standard in the Commissioner’s proceedings. |
| Bache v Essex County Council [2001] EWCA Civ 3 | Requirement of procedural fairness in administrative proceedings. | Used to emphasize the duty of procedural fairness in the context of Commissioner’s hearings. |
| R v Birmingham City Council, ex parte O [1983] 1 AC 578 | Onus on appellant to establish non-compliance with public law standards. | Cited to confirm the appellant failed to establish procedural unfairness or error of law. |
| R (Mahmood) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKUT 439 (IAC) | Duty of candour owed by litigants and legal practitioners. | Raised as a procedural issue, but no failure found and no effect on outcome. |
| R v SOSNI, ex parte Johnston [1984] NIJB 10 | Principle that refusal of adjournment must not unfairly deprive party of opportunity to present case. | Supported the principle that fairness governs adjournment decisions. |
| In Re North Down Borough Council's Application [1986] NI 304 | Adjournment refusal must be fair and not deprive party of natural justice. | Reinforced the balancing approach in adjournment decisions. |
| Riley v CPS [2013] EWCA Civ 951 | Consideration of Wednesbury principle in procedural fairness and adjournment decisions. | The court respectfully disagreed with reliance on Wednesbury in this context, favoring a fairness test. |
| Andreou v The Lord Chancellor's Department [2012] EWCA Civ 1009 | Balancing fairness to parties and efficient case management in adjournment decisions. | Used to underscore the importance of balancing interests in procedural decisions. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the statutory framework under the Local Government (Northern Ireland) Act 2014, which provides a mechanism for investigation, adjudication, and appeal concerning alleged breaches of the Councillor's Code of Conduct. The Commissioner’s process is inquisitorial and flexible, aiming to ensure procedural fairness without strict adherence to formal evidential rules.
The appellant’s principal complaint was procedural unfairness arising from the refusal of an adjournment and the hearing proceeding in her absence and without oral submissions. The court noted the appellant’s solicitor withdrew shortly before the hearing due to funding issues, and the appellant’s attempts to participate remotely were unsuccessful. The Assistant Commissioner offered alternatives, including in-person attendance and legal assistance from the Legal Assessor, but the appellant chose not to attend based on legal advice.
The court agreed with the High Court’s findings that the appellant’s absence was voluntary and that the Assistant Commissioner had properly considered her written submissions and reasons for adjournment. The court emphasized there was no absolute right to oral representations, and the refusal to adjourn was not unreasonable or unfair given the circumstances.
The court extensively reviewed relevant case law on adjournment discretion, notably the principle that the test on review or appeal is whether the refusal unfairly deprived the litigant of a fair hearing, not merely whether the decision was Wednesbury unreasonable. The court found that the Assistant Commissioner’s decision was procedurally fair, that all material factors were considered, and that the appellant failed to demonstrate substantial unfairness.
The appeal remedy under section 59(13) of the 2014 Act was found to be a viable and adequate alternative to judicial review, encompassing broad grounds including procedural impropriety and error of law. The appellant’s failure to pursue that remedy was not excused by lack of legal aid funding, which did not constitute exceptional circumstances.
Finally, the court addressed the duty of candour issue raised but found no failure by the appellant affecting the outcome.
Holding and Implications
The Court of Appeal DISMISSED the appeal, affirming the judgment and order of the High Court.
The direct consequence of this decision is that the disqualification imposed by the Commissioner’s Assistant Commissioner stands, preventing the appellant from holding the office of councillor for three years. The court did not set any new precedent beyond affirming established principles that adjournment refusals will only be overturned where substantial unfairness is demonstrated, and that statutory appeal routes provide an adequate remedy for procedural challenges in this context.
Alert