Oliver Shipley represented the respondent in an appeal brought by the Chief Constable of Humberside Police, challenging the decision of a District Judge in a Judicial Review. The case arose from an application made by Humberside Police to the Magistrates’ Court for a Closure Order concerning a property in Hull, which sought to compel the occupants to vacate the premises. Following a contested hearing, the District Judge granted the order, but also entertained an application from the respondent to suspend the order pending appeal.
After careful legal deliberation, the District Judge agreed to suspend the order under section 63(2) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, pending an appeal to the Crown Court. The Chief Constable opposed this decision and sought to challenge it via Judicial Review.
Oliver was instructed to represent the respondent in both the Crown Court appeal and the Judicial Review proceedings. Following a contested hearing before Mr. Justice Fordham, the judgment clarified the scope of the powers to suspend an order pending appeal to the Crown Court, affirming that section 63(2) does not confer suspensive authority. However, the judgment also highlighted alternative powers related to deferring the commencement of a Closure Order and outlined the suspension powers available to the Crown Court when considering an appeal under the Senior Courts Act.
The decision offers significant insight into how future Closure Orders may be structured, potentially with deferred start dates, and raises important questions about the Crown Court’s ability to exercise suspension powers in the context of immediate appeals against such orders.
Oliver Shipley was instructed by Nicholas Clay of John Robinsons & Co.
The judgment and related commentary can be found here:
BAILII – https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2024/2859.html
UK Human Rights Blog – https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2025/03/10/significant-article-6-echr-decision-on-courts-ability-to-suspend-orders-pending-appeal/