Louis Browne KC and David Illingworth appear in Judicial Review

June 16, 2025

On 5 June 2025, Louis Browne KC and David Illingworth from Exchange Chambers appeared before the Divisional Court (Baker LJ, Jay J) in a judicial review touching on the use of a closed material procedure in firearms appeals.

In 2023, Cambridgeshire Police had taken a decision to refuse to renew the shotgun certificate of Mr Adrian Kimber. In reaching their decision, the police had relied on material which they said was too sensitive to be disclosed to Mr Kimber. Mr Kimber appealed the police’s refusal decision to the Crown Court. In that appeal, the police applied for public interest immunity (PII) in respect of the sensitive material relied upon. The police also sought a closed material procedure (CMP) in the firearms appeal, which would enable the sensitive material to be heard in CLOSED proceedings to which Mr Kimber would not have access.

The Crown Court held that the sensitive material met the test for PII, but declined to order a CMP. The police sought judicial review of that decision.

The use of CMPs in the context of firearms appeals is novel. It represents an extension of the so-called Haralambous jurisdiction, which enables a court to hold CLOSED proceedings when it is reviewing a decision to issue a warrant on the basis of CLOSED material.  A decision of the High Court in 2023 (R (Met Police) v Kingston Crown Court [2023] EWHC 1938) held that the statutory context in which firearms appeals take place meant that the court had an inferred jurisdiction to adopt a similar procedure where a firearms decision is reached on the basis of sensitive material.

Louis Browne KC and David Illingworth, instructed by Lachlan Nisbet and Charlotte McRae from Brabners, appeared for Mr Kimber as the interested party. They set out, orally and in writing, the legal principles governing CMPs in this context in order to assist the court. This included a particular emphasis on the importance of ensuring any derogation from the principle of open justice is restricted to the minimum necessary, e.g. by considering partial disclosure or gists of the CLOSED material.

Ultimately, the Divisional Court quashed the decision of the Crown Court and remitted the police’s application for PII and CMP back to a freshly-constituted Crown Court for determination. Having had its attention drawn to the relevant authorities, the Divisional Court emphasised the importance of following the clear procedure set out in the Kingston case, which includes a number of important safeguards for appellants who are denied access to the CLOSED material relied upon in their appeal.