[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Turton, R (on the application of) v Sheffield Magistrates Court [2001] EWCA Civ 168 (8 February 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/168.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 168

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
(MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Thursday 8 February 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE SIMON BROWN: This is an application for permission to appeal against the order made by Sullivan J on 24 October 2000 refusing Mr Turton's application for permission to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Sheffield Magistrates' Court on 23 June 2000 to the effect that he was subject to a liability order to pay council tax.
2. The order was in respect of unpaid council tax for the year 1 April 2000 - 31 March 2001 in the sum of £623.90 and £33.30 costs. The magistrates found the case proved, notwithstanding Mr Turton's objections to make payment. Accordingly, the liability order was made together with an order for costs of £17.
3. Mr Turton, who has taken the trouble to come today from Sheffield and who has appeared in person and put his argument before me no less courteously than he is recorded as having done before Sullivan J below, feels very unhappy, not to say angry, about the way that he regards the Sheffield City Council as having treated him down the years. I first quote what Sullivan J had to say about this:

"Mr Turton .... considers that he has been mistreated by a number of authorities over a large number of years. He referred to the whole of his life but, perhaps, most of the problems started when he was dismissed by British Rail in 1991, he says wrongly, and he says thereafter he was wrongly denied benefits by the DSS Benefits Agency. He also says that he has been badly treated by various banks and finance houses and by corporate bodies such as British Gas. Whilst I quite understand he feels a strong sense of grievance about all of those matters, the short point is that they have nothing to do with his liability to pay council tax.

That indeed was the conclusion which was reached by Mr Justice Elias, in this Court, in respect of an earlier application made by Mr Turton, as regards the previous year's council tax.

It is perfectly right that Mr Turton says that he also has certain unspecified grievances against the council. Many of us feel that our councils do not act quite as efficiently as they should, but the short answer is that this does not relieve us of the obligation to pay council tax. If a citizen has complaints about the conduct of his or her council, then there are various avenues of complaint, eg Local Government Ombudsman or the council's reviewing officer. What the citizen is not entitled to do is not pay the council tax and so I reach the same conclusion in respect of this year's council tax as in respect of last year's council tax, that there is no arguable case here."

4. In the result, he refused Mr Turton's application.
5. That judgment notwithstanding, Mr Turton returns to the fray and sets out his grounds of appeal in terms which include the following:

"The judge did not take into account the fact that the local council to which my council tax is paid also misused me in respect of using me as a political football .... and continually used my neighbours to intrude into my space. I also believe they conspired with my employer to illegally put me out of work."

6. Mr Turton summarises his argument pithily before me by saying that the City Council have used against him "shameful, bullying tactics" and he is simply not prepared to pay any more to such an organisation. He invites this court not to stand idly by but rather to accept and vindicate his grievances by relieving him of the liability to pay tax to his City Council.
7. Mr Turton has very candidly said that the CAB, who assisted him in preparing today's short bundle, have advised him that he has no case, but that he cannot accept that advice. I have to tell him that, with the best will in the world, that advice is sound. As a matter of law there is simply no basis upon which, whatever grievances he may have against the council, he is entitled to cease making payment of his annual council tax. The Sheffield Magistrates had to adjudicate upon that question, his liability for council tax, and no other. They could not properly have regard to whatever outstanding grievances Mr Turton may or may not have against the City Council. There is here no argument of any nature available to Mr Turton with regard to this proposed challenge, neither under the European Convention on Human Rights nor under any principle of domestic law.
8. I know he will be disappointed with this conclusion and I doubt whether he will feel able to accept it, but no challenge here is viable, arguable or capable of success. Accordingly, I must refuse his renewed application.
Order: Application dismissed.