KB-2024-000763 - [2025] EWHC 2791 (KB)
King's / Queen's Bench Division of the High Court

KB-2024-000763 - [2025] EWHC 2791 (KB)

Fecha: 30-Oct-2025

Paragraph 33 (Due process)

Paragraph 33 (Due process)

55.

The Claimant alleges that under the VRR scheme “due process” was not followed because he was not told how to challenge the decision through the Mayor’s Office, nor the time limit for judicial review. The Defendant says this is not a recognised cause of action under English law, and is also reflective of a fundamental misunderstanding, because the only way to challenge the decision was by way of judicial review, which the Inspector did communicate, and there was no legal obligation to inform the Claimant of the time limit.

56.

The manner in which the Claimant presents this claim overlaps with others I must consider in due course such as professional negligence. He feels badly let down, and that the system has not properly operated to meet his needs and promote public safety.

57.

It is unclear how any review by the Mayor’s Office would have brought about a different decision on the legal merits of a prosecution being advanced, a matter already considered within the judicial review process, irrespective of any missed time limits. In any event the opportunity to proceed via the Mayor’s Office in respect of PSU findings was set out clearly at the end of the PSU decision letter at [75] in the bundle, a fact which the Claimant acknowledged in later papers prepared for the judicial review (at [123] in the bundle).

58.

At [58] of the hearing bundle, the VRR report clearly advises of the right to seek judicial review and it is correct that under English law no cause of action lies for the police failing to advise on relevant time limits. They did in any event inform the Claimant he might wish to seek legal advice. I note again that irrespective of the missed time limit for commencing judicial review the Administrative Court found the claim before them should fail on the merits. In these circumstances it is correct to conclude that there are no reasonable grounds for bringing a claim for breach of due process, as the claim would have failed if brought within time, so that allegation must be struck out. It is bound to fail.