Case No.CO/984/2016 
Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWHC 3695 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand
London WC2A 2LL 

Date: Tuesday, 16 August 2016
 
B e f o r e: 

MR JUSTICE SINGH
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between: 
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF OYEBOLA
Claimant

v 

WOOD GREEN CROWN COURT
Defendant 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Computer‑Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of  
WordWave International Limited Trading as DTI 
165 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Claimant appeared in Person  
The Defendant did not appear and was not represented 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T (Approved) 
1.	MR JUSTICE SINGH:  This is a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review.  Permission was refused on the papers by Cranston J on 21 June 2016.
2.	The order which the claimant seeks to challenge was made by the Crown Court at Wood Green on 8 January 2016.  To explain the effect of that order it is necessary briefly to summarise the background facts.
3.	On 13 April 2012, in the Crown Court before His Honour Judge Carr, it was found, in confiscation proceedings, that the claimant had benefited in the sum of £1,503.325.78 and he had realisable assets of £666,994.97.  There was an appeal against that confiscation order.  On 23 July 2013 the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), in a judgment which has the neutral citations reference [2013] EWCA Crim 1052, allowed the appeal to the extent that it varied the order.  It directed that the realisable amount figure was to be £601,241.95.  This was to be paid within 6 months and a sentence in default was set of 4 years' imprisonment.  In due course the claimant has been found to be in default and is currently serving a prison sentence.
4.	As I have mentioned, the order which it is sought to challenge in the present proceedings was made by the Crown Court on 8th January 2016.  The matter came before His Honour Judge Pawlak who varied the order to the extent that he deleted the value of a Rolex watch from the schedule of assets and reduced the order by £4,000 and a further £60 to reflect funds that were not in fact available in a Nationwide account.  The realisable assets figure therefore, as a consequence of the January order, became the sum of £597,181.95.
5.	In his written grounds, filed in support of the present application, the claimant has set out a wide‑ranging set of allegations including for example that the variation of the order occurred due to the fact that a person or persons in the Metropolitan Police may have stolen a gold Rolex wrist watch listed as a realisable asset.  A number of other allegations are made.  I have read the documents fully and carefully but it is unnecessary for present purposes to rehearse them at length.
6.	What the claimant asserts is a number of matters which, in my judgment, essentially constitute allegations of fact with which he seeks to challenge the order made by the Crown Court on the basis that it was wrongly made and should not have been made.
7.	It is important to emphasise, particularly because the claimant acts in person, that the jurisdiction of this court by way of judicial review exists so as to control the lawfulness of the decisions of public authorities, including where relevant, Courts and Tribunals.  The judicial review jurisdiction does not entail hearing an appeal against orders of lower courts, still less does it consist of interfering with the decisions of lower courts, on the basis of factual disputes.   This court cannot substitute its own view of the facts even if it were otherwise to find that an allegation has merit.  In appropriate circumstances there can be an appeal to the relevant court which has an appellate jurisdiction.  Indeed, as I have mentioned in the present case by way of background, there was such an appeal against the earlier form of the confiscation order in this case.
8.	In refusing permission on the papers Cranston J said that the Rolex watch issue could be regarded as "water under the bridge" since Judge Pawlak reduced the realisable asset figure in order to take the absent watch into account.  I respectfully agree.  He then considered the property at 3 Ashbourne Avenue and noted at paragraph 5 of his order that the Chancery Division has ordered its sale and the proceeds are to be paid into court, depending upon what that court decides about the ownership of the property and hence the proceeds.  It may be that the Crown Prosecution Service will need to apply to the Crown Court to vary the powers of enforcement receiver over it.  However, Cranston J was of the clear view that 3 Ashbourne Avenue has nothing to do with this court by way of judicial review and it can give rise to no grounds for judicial review.  Again, I respectfully agree.  
9.	At paragraph 6 of his order he noted that in the meantime on 19 May 2016 Judge Pawlak had directed that the Crown Prosecution Service should correct any errors in the order of 8 January 2016.  That again has nothing to do with this court by way of judicial review.  Again, I respectfully agree.
10.	At the oral hearing before me today the claimant has been given the indulgence, since he acts in person, of making a large number of further wide‑ranging submissions and of drawing the court's attention to a large number of documents which were not otherwise in his helpful bundle.
11.	However, I can deal with the points advanced briefly.  First, in my judgment, the claimant wishes to re‑argue a number of factual issues, many of which in fact date back some 3 or 4 years.  In that context he has sought to rely upon a number of documents, going back over that time frame.  He submits that furthermore a number of courts have been misled by the prosecution authorities in these proceedings.  In particular, he has asserted before me that the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) was misled.  He has also sought to amplify on the submissions that he has otherwise made and which were rejected by Cranston J as to the valuations of three realisable properties including 3 Ashbourne Avenue.  Finally, he has submitted before me that the decision in this case constitutes a violation of his human rights, in particular under Article 6 of the ECHR, as set out in schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998.  He has drawn my attention to well‑known principles of human rights law, in particular the doctrine of proportionality.  He submits that, on the facts of this case, there has been a breach of that principle.
12.	I do not accept any of those submissions.  In my judgment, there is no properly arguable case for judicial review. There is no properly arguable basis on which the Administrative Court could possibly interfere with the order under challenge which was made by the Crown Court on 8th January 2016.  Accordingly this renewed application for permission is refused.
13.	The claimant will need to be taken down.  I am going to rise for a moment so that the papers in this case can be put together because some of them I think may need to be collected by others.  I will be just outside court if you can call on the next case when you are ready.
14.	THE CLAIMANT:  My Lord, can I have my papers back? 
15.	MR JUSTICE SINGH:  I am going to ask the Associate to sort that out for you.