Peter James Agnew v Thacker and Commissioner of Police

The case involves Peter James Agnew, who is facing committal proceedings, and Thacker and the Commissioner of Police. Agnew sought judicial review of two decisions made by a magistrate regarding an application for a direction to enable the cross-examination of four witnesses. The first decision was to receive and rely on addendum statements from those witnesses in determining the application to cross-examine them. The applicant's solicitors had written to the prosecution seeking consent to cross-examine the witnesses, stipulating that matters identified in the letter pursuant to section 110B(3) of the Justices Act 1886 not be used to obtain addendum statements. The prosecution used the information for that purpose. The second decision was a refusal to direct that the four witnesses be made available for cross-examination on their statements. Agnew alleged that the magistrate’s decision involved errors of law, irrelevant considerations, and constituted an improper exercise of power.

The court was required to decide whether any provision in the Justices Act 1886 restricts the prosecution’s use of information obtained under section 110B(3) and whether the magistrate should have refused to admit the addendum statements based on the prosecution’s response being repugnant to, and implicitly prohibited by, the legislative scheme in the Justices Act 1886. Additionally, the court had to determine whether Agnew had established any basis for review of the magistrate’s decision under the Judicial Review Act 1991.

The court found that the magistrate's decision to receive and rely on the addendum statements was not an error of law. It determined that there was no restriction on the prosecution's use of information obtained under section 110B(3). The court also found that the magistrate's decision to refuse to direct that the witnesses be made available for cross-examination on their statements did not involve errors of law or irrelevant considerations, nor did it constitute an improper exercise of power. Therefore, the application for review was refused.