R vs Lavery

This case involved a judicial review application by Mr. Lavery, challenging statutory provisions related to driving with excess alcohol. The High Court dismissed the application for lack of merit and procedural non-compliance.

TLDR:

• Mr. Lavery challenged statutory provisions on driving with excess alcohol.
• The court found the challenge lacked merit under Article 6 ECHR.
• The application was also dismissed for procedural non-compliance and being out of time.

The applicant, Mr. Lavery, sought judicial review of statutory provisions that made prosecutions for driving with excess alcohol more stringent. He argued that these provisions breached his rights under Article 6 and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The court examined the applicant's Article 6 ECHR challenge, which centered on the fairness of the trial process. The court found that the statutory provisions did not impair Mr. Lavery's ability to challenge the evidence against him. The court emphasized that Article 6 is concerned with procedural fairness, not the content of substantive law.

Regarding the Article 8 ECHR claim, the court noted that it was not properly pleaded in the Order 53 Statement. The court found that the statutory provisions were compliant with the ECHR and pursued legitimate aims such as public health and safety.

The court also addressed the issue of delay, noting that the application was non-compliant with the prescribed time limit. The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, and the court found no basis for extending the time limit.

Additionally, the court highlighted the applicant's failure to submit a draft Human Rights Incompatibility Notice, despite being given ample opportunity to do so. This further undermined the applicant's case.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the application for leave to apply for judicial review, citing the lack of merit and procedural non-compliance. The court also criticized the applicant's legal representatives for their repeated failures to engage with the court's case management orders.

Finally, the court made an order for costs against the applicant, noting that the proceedings were misconceived from the outset and characterized by non-compliance with procedural rules.

Legal representatives: Mr. Lavery for the applicant, Ms. Smith (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) for the respondent.

Judicial Panel: The Honourable Mr. Justice Brown

Case Citation Reference: [2023] EWHC 1234 (Admin)