LORD JUSTICE SCHIEMANN: Before me Dr Adoko applies for permission to appeal in relation to a decision of the Divisional Court.

The underlying application, which he has, is an application for permission to move for judicial review against the West Midlands Police.
His complaint is that there is reason to suppose that a particular doctor, whom I need not name, has been guilty of murder of two patients by effectively refusing them treatment at a time when they were of advanced years.
It ties in with the euthanasia debate. The evidence that Dr Adoko has for this is, at any event so far as appears from the papers, merely two internet articles which apparently were posted on an internet site by the doctor in question. That evidence was passed to the police and they replied perfectly sensibly on 25 April 2002: "Thank you for your papers. I have forwarded them to the CPS to seek their guidance and will contact you in due course."
By the time of the hearing of the Divisional Court on 10 October 2002 the police had still not replied. The last paragraph of the judgment of the Divisional Court says: "The delay in replying to the applicant is a matter of regret, and one would hope that the police will rectify that matter as soon as possible, that will also hopefully identify what course the police intend to adopt..." .
Dr Adoko tells me that he has served the papers in this matter, including the judgment, upon the police, and has asked them to give a reply but they have not replied even as of today. In those circumstances he says that the court has power to compel the performance of a duty; one of their duties is to investigate a complaint; here is a complaint of a serious crime; it is not merely rude of them not to reply, but the implication is that they are not carrying out their investigation; and that is the only sensible way of construing the matter. I am not satisfied that there is a good case to be made here by Mr Adoko; but nor am I satisfied that the court is without power to compel the police to give an answer to the filing of such a request. In these circumstances I have adjourned this application to be heard by two judges.
It should not take more than three-quarters of an hour. I have indicated to Mr Adoko that my present judgment should be sent to the West Midlands Police so that they may consider whether or not to reply to him, and that if they do reply and the reply is a sensible reply he may very well consider that it is not sensible to come to this court; if he then persists in coming to this court he may find himself the subject of a costs order. But that is all for the future. At the moment it seems to me that justice requires that this application be adjourned for a period not in excess of two months, and I shall reserve it to myself.
Application adjourned; no order for costs