Neil Cox v DPP

Introduction

1. This is a judicial determination on the papers, but where it is appropriate to give reasons by way of a short judgment. It addresses the issue of where this claim should be administered and determined. The procedural history

2. By an Appellant’s Notice filed on 21 October 2025 the Appellant appeals by way of case stated against the decision of the Crown Court at Chester dated 8 November 2024 to dismiss his appeal against conviction for an offence of conduct contrary to the Public Order Act 1986 , s.5 . The Appellant was delayed in commencing his appeal due to some procedural difficulties with the Crown Court. The case stated was only approved and signed by the relevant Recorder of the Crown Court on 2 September 2025.

3. The Appellant filed the appeal in London. The Appellant provided no rationale for doing so. In fairness, this was probably because the N161 Appellant’s Notice has no question akin to question 4.6 on the N461 judicial review claim form, which requires those filing claims to answer “Have you issued this claim in the region with which you have the closest connection?”.

4. On 27 October 2025 a minded to transfer order (“MTTO”) was made. This is a mechanism by which the court invites and considers the views of the parties before any finalised decision to transfer the claim: see the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2025 (“the Guide”) at paragraph 7.7.5. The MTTO was made by Jessica Pressman, Administrative Court Lawyer, in the exercise of powers delegated by the President of the King’s Bench Division under CPR 54.1A: see the Guide at paragraph 13.4.5.10.

5. The MTTO recorded that Ms Pressman was minded to transfer the case to the Administrative Court in the Northern region for administration and determination at the Manchester Civil Justice Centre, in light of the following: “The appellant resides in Chesire, the decision on appeal was made by Chester Crown Court. This appeal does not appear to have any connections to London. No rationale has been provided for the initial filing in London.”

6. The MTTO gave the parties liberty to indicate opposition to transfer by way of written submissions within 7 days. The Appellant provided submissions on 31 October 2025, resisting transfer to the Northern region. The Respondent indicated that no submissions would be filed. The legal framework

7. CPR PD 54C is intended to facilitate access to justice by enabling cases to be administered and determined in the most appropriate location: paragraph 1.1.

8. It explains that the administration of the Administrative Court is organised by geographical area; and that, in addition to the central Administrative Court Office at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, there are Administrative Court Offices in Birmingham, Cardiff, Leeds and Manchester. Claims on the North-Eastern Circuit are administered from (and should be filed in) Leeds and claims on the Northern Circuit are administered from (and should be filed in) Manchester: paragraph 1.2(1).

9. The Administrative Court applies the principle that “where a claim has a specific connection to a region (by subject matter, location of the Appellant or Respondent or otherwise) it should, if at all possible, be administered and determined in that region”: paragraph 1.2(2).

10. PD 54C makes provision for certain “excepted classes of claim” at paragraph 3.1. In all other cases, proceedings should be commenced “at the Administrative Court office for the region with which the claim is most closely connected, having regard to the subject matter of the claim, the location of the Appellant, or the Respondent, or otherwise”: paragraph 2.1.

11. Paragraph 2.5 reiterates the “general expectation” that “proceedings will be administered and determined in the region with which the claim has the closest connection”. This will be determined “having regard to the subject matter of the claim, the region in which the Appellant resides and the region in which the Respondent or any relevant office or department of the Respondent is based”.

12. In addition, the court may consider any or all other relevant circumstances including the following: “(a) any reason expressed by any party for preferring a particular venue; (b) the ease and cost of travel to a hearing; (c) the availability and suitability of alternative means of attending a hearing (for example, by video-link); (d) the extent and nature of any public interest that the proceedings be heard in any particular locality; (e) the time within which it is appropriate for the proceedings to be determined; (f) whether it is desirable to administer or determine the claim in another region in the light of the volume of claims issued at, and the capacity, resources and workload of, the court at which it is issued; (g) whether the claim raises issues sufficiently similar to those in another outstanding claim to make it desirable that it should be determined together with, or immediately following, that other claim; (h) whether the claim raises devolution issues and for that reason whether it should more appropriately be determined in London or Cardiff; and (i) the region in which the legal representative[s] of the parties are based”. Submissions and decision

13. It is necessary to determine the region with which the claim is “most closely connected” by reference to the factors set out in paragraphs 2.1 and 2.5.

14. The “region in which the Appellant resides” is the Northern region, albeit that he works in London.

15. The “subject matter of the claim” is a decision made by the Crown Court at Chester, on appeal from the Crewe Magistrates Court, about the Appellant’s alleged conduct in Macclesfield on 22 August 2023. Chester, Crewe and Macclesfield are all located within the Northern region.

16. As to the “region in which the Respondent or any relevant office or department of the Respondent is based”, the Respondent has a series of regional offices, around the country. The appeal has been served on the Respondent’s Appeals and Review Unit based in York. Although York is in the North-Eastern region, it is geographically closer to Manchester than it is to London.

17. I am therefore satisfied that the appeal has the closest connection with the Northern region. Accordingly, applying paragraph 2.5, the “general expectation” is that the appeal would be administered and determined in that region.

18. It is therefore necessary to assess whether any of the other factors in paragraph 2.5 lead to a different conclusion.

19. In my judgment, they do not, for the following reasons.

20. Under (a), (b) and (i) the Appellant has expressed a preference for the case to remain in the London region, because his leading and junior counsel are based in London, and he works in London, such that travel would be easier and cheaper for all concerned if the case remained there. However, section 3 of the Appellant’s Notice indicates that his solicitors are based in Nottingham and the Appellant lives in Macclesfield.

21. Moreover, as Fordham J highlighted in R (Airedale Chemical Company Ltd) v HMRC [2022] EWHC 2937 (Admin) at [3], the parties have “decision-making autonomy” as to which lawyers to instruct; and as he said in R (Thakor / Palmer) v SSHD [2022] EWHC 2556 (Admin) Thakor at [2], instructing London counsel “ought not…normally ‘drive’ a London choice of venue becoming self-fulfilling”.

22. Under (c), both the Royal Courts of Justice and the Manchester Civil Justice Centre have video-link hearing facilities should they be needed.

23. Under (d), there is a public interest in this appeal being heard in the region with which it has the closest connection, as reflected in PD 54C. That is the Northern region.

24. Under (e) the Appellant has submitted that the appeal is likely to be heard more quickly in London than in Manchester. In fact both court centres could list this appeal in the Hilary Term of 2026. Accordingly both courts can comply with the expectation set out in the Listing Policy for the Administrative Court at Annex 4 of the Guide (Part A, paragraph 14), to the effect that non-planning statutory appeals will be listed within 9 months of the date of issue.

25. Under (f), the capacity, resources and workload of the Royal Courts of Justice would be assisted by transfer to Manchester.

26. Factor (h) is not applicable.

27. The Appellant’s submissions raises two further matters.

28. First , the Appellant’s counsel observe that, to the best of their knowledge, there has only been one other case of this kind raising issues around public naturism: Gough v DPP [2013] EWHC 3267 (Admin) , which was heard in London. It is argued that this provides the London court with some experience of dealing with such matters and that hearing the case in London may assist with fairness and consistency in the proceedings.

29. I respectfully disagree. Gough was determined almost twelve years ago. Both judges involved have now retired. This is a very different scenario to that envisaged by factor (g) of paragraph 2.5 of PD 54C, namely cases on similar facts which are both still current. Gough is an authority which may assist the court in determining this appeal, but the existence of such authorities and the need for consistency, where appropriate, is a feature of nearly every case in the Administrative Court.

30. Second , counsel submit that naturism, which is at the heart of this case, can evoke both conscious and unconscious biases. It is said that hearing the matter in London may be less likely to provoke those against the Appellant’s lifestyle than may occur if his case is heard in a smaller court centre/jurisdiction. The Appellant is also said to have a concern that transferring the case to Manchester may result in a greater likelihood of unconscious bias impacting the impartiality of the outcome.

31. I am not persuaded by these arguments. The Civil Justice Centre in Manchester is one of the largest court centres in the UK. Its judges and staff are well used to dealing with any sensitive situations that arise as a result of public attendance at hearings. There is no proper basis for suggesting that a judge sitting in the Administrative Court in Manchester is more likely to have unconscious bias against naturists than a judge sitting in the Administrative Court in London. Many judges of the Administrative Court sit in both courts. Conclusion

32. For all these reasons, I have concluded that this claim should be transferred to the Northern region for administration and determination at the Manchester Civil Justice Centre.