British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Edwards, R (on the application of) v Isleworth Crown Court Anor [2005] EWHC 2728 (Admin) (18 November 2005)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/2728.html
Cite as: [2005] EWHC 2728 (Admin)
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Strand London WC2 |
||
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE OPENSHAW
____________________
| THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF DARREN EDWARDS | Claimant | |
| -v- | ||
| ISLEWORTH CROWN COURT | Defendant | |
| and | ||
| (1) THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE | ||
| (2) GOVERNOR OF HMP WORMWOOD SCRUBS | Interested Parties |
____________________
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 JONATHAN HALL (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the First Interested Party
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- LORD JUSTICE GAGE: This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Isleworth Crown Court. It proceeds with leave of the single judge.
- The claimant is not here nor represented, and it is necessary only briefly to set out the background and issues.
- The claimant was arrested on 26th August 2004, shortly after having committed a burglary. He was subsequently charged with burglary and assault with intent to resist arrest. He appeared at the Feltham Magistrates' Court and not guilty pleas were entered. The matter was adjourned for committal to the Crown Court. It was eventually committed on 8th October to the Crown Court sitting at Isleworth. A plea and directions hearing took place on 3rd November. The claimant was arraigned on an indictment. He entered a guilty plea to count 1, which alleged burglary, and a not guilty plea to count 2, which alleged assault with intent to resist arrest. The matter was adjourned and put in the warned list for 13th December. It came on for trial on 16th December before His Honour Judge Colgan. A motion was made on behalf of the claimant to quash the indictment. It was not opposed by the Crown and the indictment was duly quashed. The basis for the motion was that the wrong procedure had been adopted for transferring the case to the Crown Court; it ought to have been a transfer under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In quashing the indictment, the Crown Court accepted that the committal proceedings were a nullity. The judge ordered that the matter be remitted to the Magistrates' Court and the claimant detained in custody for this purpose.
- On 20th December the claimant appeared before the Feltham Magistrates. On this occasion he was remanded in custody and the matter transferred for trial to the Crown Court pursuant to section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. It was conceded in the judicial review proceedings that his detention from 20th December was lawful, but it was contended that his detention between 28th August and 20th December was unlawful. That was a period of approximately four months.
- The claimant subsequently appeared on 6th June 2005 at the Crown Court at Isleworth. He indicated that he would plead to the burglary. Count 2 was ordered to remain on the file. On his behalf it was stated in open court that the judicial review proceedings were no longer to be pursued. He was sentenced to 16 months' imprisonment. The judge who sentenced him, His Honour Judge Katkhuda, expressly stated in his sentencing remarks that the applicant's sentence was reduced by eight months to reflect the fact that he had served three months and 27 days in custody which was an unlawful detention. It was therefore unsurprising that the applicant should indicate that he no longer pursued the judicial review proceedings.
- In the circumstances, we are asked on behalf of the first interested party by Mr Hall to dismiss this application for judicial review. As we have said, the applicant is not present nor represented. Accordingly, we dismiss this application for judicial review.
- That is a judgment of the court.
- Thank you very much Mr Hall.
- MR HALL: Thank you.