Glass (a pseudonym) v Chief Examiner

The matter before the Court was an appeal against a decision to refuse an application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings. The applicant, Mr Glass, sought to challenge the Chief Examiner’s decision to rescind a non-publication direction made under the Major Crime (Investigative Powers) Act 2004. The Chief Examiner rescinded the direction to enable coercively obtained evidence to be used in the prosecution of an alleged co-offender. The coercive powers order had expired at the time of rescission. The primary issues before the Court were whether a non-publication direction could be revoked after the expiry of a coercive powers order and whether the delegate was empowered to rescind the non-publication direction under the relevant instrument of delegation.

The Court held that the applicant’s case had little merit as the coercive powers order had expired at the time of rescission. The Court considered that the Chief Examiner was not empowered to rescind the non-publication direction as the instrument of delegation was “in respect of” the coercive powers order. The Court also noted that the applicant had not argued the point before the judge in the Trial Division. The Court exercised its discretion to refuse leave to appeal, considering that the merits of the case were weak and the point had not been argued before the judge in the Trial Division.

The Court also noted that the applicant had not established special circumstances to justify an extension of time to commence judicial review proceedings. The strength of the case for judicial review was taken into account in determining whether special circumstances were made out. The Court referred to relevant authorities such as The Chief Examiner v Mary Brown, AJH v Chief Examiner and Balmer and Associates v VLA. The Court also considered the need for finality in litigation and the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 and Supreme Court Act 1986.

The Court dismissed the appeal and made no orders as to costs.