CO/5775/2003 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 2715 Admin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION  
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand
London WC2 

Wednesday, 5th November 2003
 
B E F O R E:

MR JUSTICE NEWMAN 

- - - - - - -
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF G (A MINOR)
(CLAIMANT)

-v- 

INNER LONDON CROWN COURT
(DEFENDANT) 
 
 - - - - - - -
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
 - - - - - - -
MR M HARDIE (instructed by G T STEWART SOLICITORS) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT
THE DEFENDANT DID NOT APPEAR AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED
- - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T 
Wednesday, 5th November 2003 
1.	MR JUSTICE NEWMAN:  I merely want to state, on the record, the number of reasons why, in my judgment, this is an appropriate case for bail.  
2.	The hearing of the appeal, which is a complete rehearing in the Crown Court, will not be until 21st November.  It is unfortunate in respect of a conviction on 18th July of a youth that there should be this period of time to wait before there is an appeal.  The considerations in relation to bail, apart from the obvious ones, namely that this is a youth, secondly, that she is of previous good character, thirdly, has been on bail throughout the remand period before the trial in the Magistrates' Court, is also affected by the considerations to which the court was very helpfully drawn in the statement and argument put before it in support of this application.  
3.	I do not regard consideration of the merits of an appeal, where there is to be a full rehearing, as an appropriate approach to bail.  It is quite impossible for the court to form a view when the whole matter depends upon the credibility of witnesses who are going to give evidence in the future.  Secondly, it does seem to me that there is a material difference between a case where there is an appeal as of right from a Magistrate, as here, and there is to be a rehearing.  
4.	So far as possible I see no reason why the position which should be attained should be significantly different to that which prevailed before the trial before the Magistrate.  She had bail, the trust of the court was put in her.  The trust of this court is, therefore, put in her and her parents to see that she attends at the rehearing.  The difference is that if she does not, and her appeal is therefore not pursued, that there will be extant an order for her detention and there can be no doubt that the authorities would instantly issue a warrant for her arrest.  
5.	In my judgment, all those matters militate in favour of this being a case for bail.  But I would ask that Mr Hardie convey to Mr Stewart, and ensure that this is conveyed to the girl in question and her parents, that the consequences of her not turning up are that she will stand a convicted person and will be arrested.
6.	MR HARDIE:  Your Lordship, can I take it that that is the end of the judicial review application process in this -- 
7.	MR JUSTICE NEWMAN:  It is odd to come by way of judicial review.  I have delivered my reasons.  It is a quirk in the system.  In my judgment this is a case, therefore, in which there should be permission to apply for judicial review and this should be regarded as the hearing for judicial review.  Judicial review is granted and bail is granted.
8.	MR HARDIE:  I am grateful.
9.	MR JUSTICE NEWMAN:  Thank you very much for reminding me as to that.