Green v Personal Insolvency Acts 2012-2021 (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

These proceedings arise from an incident said to have occurred on 19 or 20 August 2025. The Applicant alleges that he was observing a large fire on a bridge in The City and that, as the evening progressed, a police cordon was extended such that his bicycle lay within it. The Applicant states that he entered the cordon to retrieve his bicycle. A member of The Police took his details and told him he should not be within the cordon; the Applicant alleges that no formal direction to leave was given.

The Applicant says that he remained just outside the cordon and picked up a piece of crime-scene tape from the ground which he placed in his bag as a souvenir. Shortly after midnight he was approached by another member of The Police who advised that he was within the cordon. The Applicant alleges that when he disputed that, his details were taken down and he was then arrested and searched.

The Applicant informed the Court (though this was not averred in his verifying affidavit or in the statement required to ground the judicial review application) that he was taken to a police station where he spent approximately three hours before being released on bail. He has been charged with an offence under the Public Order Act 1994 and with an offence under the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 in respect of the crime-scene tape.

The Applicant applied to the High Court on 22 August 2025 seeking leave to apply for judicial review against the Respondent. The statement required to ground the application sought the following reliefs:

• a declaration that the Applicant's arrest was unlawful and that his personal rights were violated;
• an order of certiorari or prohibition to prevent the Respondent from prosecuting the Applicant for the alleged offences;
• compensation for emotional distress arising from alleged unlawful detention and frivolous criminal accusations;
• an order for costs under Article 40.4 of the Constitution.

The Applicant also sought (apparently under Article 40.4) inquiry into the legality of his arrest and detention and preservation of evidence (including orders for CCTV and body-worn camera footage). In his verifying affidavit the Applicant averred that court fees would create an undue financial burden and asked the Court to waive fees. By ex parte motion docket he also sought declarations that access to the courts is a fundamental constitutional right, that the judiciary have a duty to uphold constitutional rights, and an order waiving all fees associated with the judicial review on the grounds that fees obstruct access to justice.

The Court recorded that the question of waiver of fees only arose if the Applicant succeeded in obtaining leave to apply for judicial review. The primary procedural question for the High Court was therefore whether to grant leave to apply for judicial review.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether it was appropriate to grant the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his arrest, detention and the ensuing criminal charges.
2. Whether the exceptional remedy of prohibition of criminal proceedings (or certiorari to prevent prosecution) was arguable and appropriate on the material before the Court.
3. Whether judicial review was the appropriate procedural vehicle for complaints of wrongful arrest and false imprisonment, or whether private law remedies and the ongoing criminal process provided adequate forums.
4. Whether court fees should be waived on constitutional grounds (noting that the Court treated this as an issue only arising if leave to apply for judicial review were granted).

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant's central contention was that he ought not to be charged with a public order offence for failure to comply with a police direction because, he says, no formal direction to leave the area was given to him.
• The Applicant sought an order preventing prosecution (certiorari or prohibition) and declaratory relief that his arrest was unlawful and his rights violated.
• He sought preservation orders for evidence (CCTV and body-worn camera footage) and claimed that court fees would be an undue financial barrier to accessing the courts, seeking a waiver of fees on constitutional grounds.
• The Applicant addressed the Court briefly and did not expand upon his written materials or apply the law in any detailed way at the hearing, according to the Court's account.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of any substantive arguments advanced by the Respondent in opposition at the hearing.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court framed the primary relief sought as an order of prohibition of criminal proceedings and began by stating the general principles applicable to judicial review in the context of criminal prosecutions. The Court emphasised that prohibition of criminal process is an exceptional remedy, available only where there is a real and unavoidable risk of an unfair trial that cannot be remedied by the trial judge's rulings and directions.

The Court noted the procedural requirement under Order 84 of the Rules of the Superior Courts that an application for judicial review must specify the grounds relied upon. It identified the relevant leave test as that set out in G v. DPP: an applicant must, on a prima facie basis via affidavit and submissions, show that (a) the averred facts would be sufficient, if proved, to support a stateable ground for the relief sought; (b) an arguable case in law exists; and (c) judicial review is the only effective remedy or, if there is another remedy, that judicial review is the more appropriate procedure.

Applying those principles to the material before the Court, the Judge found that there was no stateable or arguable ground for a remedy in judicial review on the facts presented. The reasons given include:

• Judicial review is generally inappropriate during the currency of criminal proceedings except in wholly exceptional cases; the Court found no such exceptional circumstances here.
• The Applicant's claim that he was wrongfully arrested and falsely imprisoned is a matter for a plenary private-law action seeking damages (a tort action) rather than for public-law judicial review; there is no mechanism to remit the question of arrest back to the police for redetermination via judicial review.
• The contested factual issue — whether a formal direction to leave was given by The Police — requires oral evidence from the Applicant and the relevant police members. Such fact-finding properly belongs in the District Court criminal proceedings where that oral evidence can be heard and assessed.
• Judicial review proceeds by affidavit and is concerned with the manner in which decisions are made (procedural fairness), not with resolving substantive factual disputes; the core of this case was fact-finding about alleged wrongdoing rather than an assessment of a decision-making process.
• The Applicant had not adequately set out or argued his legal case at the leave hearing and addressed the Court only briefly without applying the law to his facts.
• The Court assumed that the Applicant's constitutional rights will be respected in the course of the criminal proceedings and that the criminal process, together with the possible availability of a private-law action, provided more appropriate remedies than judicial review in the circumstances.

On this basis the Court concluded that the Applicant had failed to meet the prima facie test for leave to apply for judicial review and that the exceptional remedy of prohibition was not arguably appropriate.

Holding and Implications

LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW REFUSED.

Direct effect on the parties:

• The Applicant's application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused at the leave stage.
• The criminal charges against the Applicant are to proceed in the appropriate criminal forum (the District Court), where contested factual issues (such as whether a direction to leave was given) will be determined with oral evidence.
• If the Applicant maintains claims of wrongful arrest or false imprisonment, the Court noted that an appropriate remedy would be a private-law plenary action seeking damages rather than judicial review.
• The Applicant's request for a waiver of court fees was not reached on the merits because the fee question was contingent on the grant of leave; having refused leave, the Court did not grant the fee waivers sought.

Broader implications:

The opinion applied established tests for leave to apply for judicial review (as set out in G v. DPP) and emphasised the limited and exceptional role of judicial review in interrupting ongoing criminal proceedings. The judgment did not purport to create or announce a novel legal principle; it resolved the application on established public-law and procedural grounds.