Sir John Hawkins and his epic voyage all the way to the Court of Appeal (and back again)

Seven sets of proceedings, the (almost) first black footballer for England, and a little square in Plymouth.

Charlotte Davies takes us on the journey from a proposal to rename a small square to the Extended Civil Restraint Order which sees the long-awaited end to the litigation surrounding the renaming of Sir John Hawkins Square, Plymouth.

In a case that gained international interest, Mr Danny Bamping had initially pursued an appeal against the Council's decision to change the name of the Sir John Hawkins Square to Jack Leslie Square by virtue of s.18 Public Health Act 1925. The Act entitles any person to appeal against such renaming if they are so “aggrieved” (s.18(4)). Section 8 of the Act sets out how such an appeal should be brought.

The Council's decision and the appeal were subject to media coverage worldwide, with Radio 4 airing a programme dedicated to discussing the proposed change. The case has also featured in a number of recent documentaries discussing the impact of the Black Lives Matter movement, and in particular the changing of street names and the removal of statues of historical figures involved in slave trading. A proposal to commence the process of removing the name of the Elizabethan sailor Sir John Hawkins from (somewhat ironically) the square on which the Magistrates’ Court sits, was made by Plymouth City Council following discussions between the public and local Councillors over Hawkins’ involvement in the slave trade. The Council proposed to rename the Square after Jack Leslie, the only black footballer in England during his time with Plymouth Argyle. Jack Leslie was called up to play for England in 1925 (notably the same year that the Public Health Act came into force) but the invitation was withdrawn after it was speculated that members of the FA became aware of his ethnicity.

The hearing of the initial appeal was heard in December 2020 with?the District Judge finding that Mr Bamping had failed to prove that the decision of the Council was "wrong", applying?Basildon Borough Council v James [2015] EWHC 3365. Having?lost on every ground, he was ordered to pay the Council's costs in full.

Mr Bamping sought to appeal the decision by way of Case Stated. However, after written submissions from both sides on the draft and a finalised version being provided by the Judge, Mr Bamping then failed to file the appeal with the High Court. Instead, some months later, he filed a claim for Judicial Review. The claim for Judicial Review challenged the content of the draft Case Stated, it being by then well out of time to lodge any form of appeal against the original decision made in December 2020.?

Mr Justice Johnson, who reviewed Mr Bamping's claim for Judicial Review and the submissions filed in response on behalf of the Council, found that his claim was "totally without merit" and had failed to identify "any public law error on the part of the Defendant". He had also failed to file the claim on time and thereafter serve proceedings on the Council in time. Given he had failed to file his appeal by way of Case Stated in any event, its wording was now entirely academic.?Mr Bamping was barred from requesting the matter be reconsidered at an oral hearing and was again ordered to pay the Council's costs in full, in addition to the costs already ordered against him at the first instance hearing.?

Mr Bamping then saw fit to issue proceedings in the Court of Appeal under CPR 52.7, bringing an appeal against Mr Justice Johnson’s decision to refuse permission for Judicial Review. On 27 June 2022, following the filing of lengthy Grounds of Response by Plymouth City Council and various further arguments and submissions from Mr Bamping, he abandoned that appeal.

Mr Bamping then applied to have the original decision dated 4 December 2020, and by now made over 18 months prior, set aside on the basis that the decision was “unlawful”. This application was brought on a somewhat “innovative” basis pursuant to the principles established in Liverpool City Council v Plemora Distribution Ltd [2002] EWHC 2467 (Admin) in which it was decided that where (a) there is a genuine and arguable dispute about the defendant’s liability; and (b) a substantial procedural error, defect or mishap has been made; and (c) the application has been made promptly, the decision can be set aside. On promptness, Mr Justice Burnton made it clear in R (Brighton and Hove City Council) v Brighton and Hove Justices [2004] EWHC 1980 (Admin): action should be taken within a matter of days or at the most within a matter of weeks, not months, and certainly not as much as a year. Gross delay, coupled with the fact that the first instance decision placed no “liability” on Mr Bamping in any event, resulted in the court accepting the Council’s submissions, the application being refused and determined to be “totally without merit”, with a further costs order made in Plymouth City Council’s favour.

Undeterred, Mr Bamping sought, again, to appeal by way of Case Stated. This time against the decision to refuse to set aside the original decision. On 26 September 2022 the application was refused on the basis that it was “frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process”.

In what was to be the seventh, and final, bite of the cherry, Mr Bamping issued Judicial Review proceedings in the High Court against the decision to refuse to allow an appeal by way of Case Stated. No one can ever accuse Mr Bamping of giving in easily.

On 3 April 2023, after considering Plymouth City Council’s Grounds of Response, not only did Mr Justice Baker find the latest claim for Judicial Review to be “totally without merit” but Mr Bamping’s continuing and repeated relitigating of the same issue to be “frivolous” and “vexatious”. Permission for Judicial Review was therefore refused and further to that, an Extended Civil Restraint Order made. This means that Mr Bamping cannot issue proceedings against Plymouth Magistrates Court or Plymouth City Council at all for a period of two years, or any proceedings regarding the renaming of Sir John Hawkins Square against any party, without permission of the court.

An end, it is hoped, to the tempestuous saga.

And what of Sir John Hawkins Square? With the name Jack Leslie now being attributed to a previously unnamed road next to Home Park stadium, Plymouth Argyle’s football ground, what will become of the now infamous little square in Plymouth remains unchartered.

Charlotte acted for Plymouth City Council throughout the Sir John Hawkins Square litigation.

If you wish to discuss instructing Charlotte on a similar matter, or in any of her other practice areas, her clerk Jamie can be contacted on?01752 221551 or?[email protected].