Permission to appeal decisions by UK Supreme Court
9 December 2015
The Supreme Court has today announced its decisions on the following permission to appeal applications. These decisions were made by a panel of three Supreme Court Justices following a review of the relevant written submissions.
1. R (on the application of Delezuch) (AP) (Appellant) v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police (Respondent)
R (on the application of Duggan) (AP) (Appellant) v Association of Chief Police Officers (Respondent) (UKSC 2015/0185)
On appeal from the Court of Appeal Civil Division (England and Wales)
The Supreme Court has refused applications by Mr Delezuch and Mrs Duggan in an appeal for Judicial Review of guidelines regarding post-incident procedures following deaths in police custody/during contact with the police. The issue at stake in this appeal is whether current post-incident procedures gives rise to an unacceptable risk that investigations conducted pursuant to it will contravene Article 2 ECHR.
The Supreme Court has declined to hear the appeal and the Court of Appeal judgment therefore stands:
The substantive text of the Supreme Court's Order reads:
"The Court ordered that permission to appeal be refused because the applications do not raise an arguable point of law."
2. Prest (Appellant) v Prest (Respondent) (UKSC 2015/0184)
On appeal from the Court of Appeal Civil Division (England and Wales)
Permission for Mr Prest to appeal was refused in an appeal relating to an order for imprisonment following Mr Prest's failure to pay his ex-wife court-ordered ancillary relief.
Mr and Mrs Prest divorced after a number of years of marriage. The legal proceedings that followed were lengthy, and included an order that Mr Prest pay ancillary relief to Mrs Prest. He failed to make the payments required by the order, and Mrs Prest applied for a judgment summons under section 5 of the Debtors Act 1869. After adjournments for various reasons, the proceedings were determined by the same judge who had heard the ancillary relief proceedings, who made an order for Mr Prest's imprisonment for 4 weeks (with a 3 month suspension for him to pay the required sum). Mr Prest appealed against that order.
The Supreme Court has declined to hear the appeal and the Court of Appeal judgment therefore stands:
The substantive text of the Supreme Court's Order reads:
"The Court ordered that permission to appeal be refused because the application does not raise an arguable point of law."
Other results of the most recent round of permission to appeal applications will be published in the next week or so on the Court's website.