James Richardson QC v Judicial Executive Board [2018] EWHC 1825 (Admin)
The claimant argued that the decision of the Judicial Executive Board to approve Blackstone’s Criminal Practice as the official criminal law text for courts in England Wales, as opposed to Archbold, was unlawful. The claimant was the former editor of Archbold.
Held: (1) Claim made out of time, (2) In any event all substantive challenges are devoid of merit. (3) the decision to adopt Blackstone’s as the official text had been made by the lord chief justice who, “beyond argument”, had the power to report the views of the judiciary to the lord chancellor and to persuade him to purchase the books. (4) There was no unfairness in the consultation process with circuit judges. (5) There was no bias on the part of the judicial executive board, and in fact the actual decision was made by the lord chief justice. (6) In relation to Leveson LJ (who is a member of the Blackstone’s Editorial Board) “The lord chief justice was aware of his role and in any event in the context of the decision … there is no appearance of bias on the part of Sir Brian Leveson.” (7) An allegation that the evaluation of judicial consultation responses was ‘irrational’ was rejected.
Claimant to pay costs of £10,728.