QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
1 Oxford Row
Leeds, West Yorkshire
B e f o r e :
(Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
|THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF UDDIN||Claimant|
|CROWN COURT AT LEEDS||Defendant|
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr J Sandiford (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Interested Party
Crown Copyright ©
HIS HONOUR JUDGE JEREMY RICHARDSON QC:
The Judicial Review Claim
Two Important Matters
Section 29(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981
"(3) In relation to the jurisdiction of the Crown Court, other than its jurisdiction in matters relating to trial on indictment, the High Court shall have all such jurisdiction to make [mandatory, prohibiting or quashing orders] as the High Court possesses in relation to the jurisdiction of an inferior court."
The Isleworth Crown Court case and the Manchester Crown Court case
"... the present application is for judicial review of a refusal of bail by the Crown Court. Two jurisdictional issues require comment, although there is no dispute about them in the present case. The first is the exclusion of judicial review in respect of 'matters relating to trial on indictment' by section 29(3) of the Supreme Court Act. It is common ground, and I accept, that a decision as to bail at an early stage of criminal proceedings does not relate to trial on indictment as that expression has been interpreted in cases such as R v Manchester Crown Court ex parte DPP  98 Cr.App.R 461 HL, where Lord Browne-Wilkinson stated that the question to be posed when considering the "trial on indictment" test was as follows:
"'Is the decision sought to be reviewed one arising in the issue between the Crown and the defendant formulated by the indictment (including the costs of such issue)?' ... If the answer is 'no', the decision of the Crown Court is truly collateral to the indictment of the defendant and judicial review of that decision will not delay his trial: therefore, it may well not be excluded by the section."
"It may therefore be a helpful further pointer to the true construction of the section to ask the question: 'Is the decision sought to be reviewed one arising in the issue between the Crown and the defendant formulated by the indictment (including the costs of such issue)?' If the answer is 'Yes', then to permit the decision to be challenged by judicial review may lead to delay in the trial: the matter is therefore probably excluded from review by the section. If the answer is 'No', the decision of the Crown Court is truly collateral to the indictment of the defendant and judicial review of that decision will not delay his trial: therefore it may well not be excluded by the section.I must emphasise that again, this is not an attempt to give a comprehensive definition of the meaning of statutory words. It is merely a third helpful pointer. There may be cases where it points in the wrong direction."
"6. I am bound to say that I am not entirely happy with the expression used by Maurice Kay LJ referring to an 'early stage of criminal proceedings' because it seems to me that if the principle referred to by Lord Browne-Wilkinson is applicable, there is no reason to limit it to an early stage of the proceedings. The only thing I would say is that obviously if the trial has commenced and a decision is made in the course of the trial to refuse bail, then I can well see that it may be that the situation is somewhat different because clearly if there is an application made to this court, that could affect the continuing progress of the trial itself and that should not be permitted to occur. But I see no reason why an application should not be made provided the trial goes on in the meantime, because the nature of the application and whether it does indeed relate to trial on indictment does not seem to me to be a matter which ought to be determined by the stage which the proceedings have reached.
7. It perhaps is not necessary to form any concluded view about that. Suffice it to say that I am persuaded that any application that arises, certainly before the trial itself actually starts, is one which can be dealt with by this court. I do not reach any final decision, as I do not need to, as to what the position would actually be had the trial itself commenced."
I have to grapple with exactly the problem identified by the judge.
The Answer to the Central Question
If I am wrong permission to apply or not
"The test must be on Wednesbury principles, but robustly applied and with this court always keeping in mind that Parliament has understandably vested the decision in judges in the Crown Court who have everyday experience of, and feel for, bail applications. Of course if bail were to be refused on a basis such as "I always refuse in this type of case", or some other un-judicial basis, then this court would and should interfere."
HIS HONOUR JUDGE JEREMY RICHARDSON QC: Gentlemen, what I have in mind to do is to make an order in the following terms. I would welcome any submissions you have to make upon this: "Upon hearing counsel for the claimant and interested party And upon recording that the defendant had notice of the hearing
And upon the court delivering judgment and determining (i) the court has no jurisdiction to hear this claim as the case is covered by section 29(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1982 and (ii) even if there had been jurisdiction the court would not have been minded to grant permission to apply for judicial review
And upon the court considering all the documents submitted by the parties
It is ordered that:
(i) this claim is hereby struck out; and.
(ii) the transcript of the judgment shall be sent to His Honour Christopher Batty for information."
Is there anything else that needs to be added?
MR SANDIFORD: No. The only issue might be costs but as I understand, the defendant is legally aided and he is in custody.
HIS HONOUR JUDGE JEREMY RICHARDSON QC: Ordinarily an interested party, as you are, does not get their costs save in exceptional circumstances which I do not think exist in this case.
MR SANDIFORD: I am obliged.
HIS HONOUR JUDGE JEREMY RICHARDSON QC: In fairness you might have had an argument given that you actually advanced the case and the Crown Court did not, but given here the defendant in the criminal case, the claimant in this case, is legal aided, there is really no point.
MR SANDIFORD: I am obliged.
HIS HONOUR JUDGE JEREMY RICHARDSON QC: Shall I say under item (iii): no order as to costs?
MR SANDIFORD: No. I am obliged.
My Lord, I suspect that my learned friend may have a similar request but might we have a copy of the transcript in due course?
HIS HONOUR JUDGE JEREMY RICHARDSON QC: All cases in the Administrative Court apart from renewed permission hearings are transcribed and go on the BAILII website and Casetrack.
MR SANDIFORD: That is very helpful.
HIS HONOUR JUDGE JEREMY RICHARDSON QC: This is an unusual case and I am going to direct that there is a transcript and it should be expedited, not overnight but certainly it should not wait long in the queue. It is an important case and it is one where, unlike a number of the previous cases, with the exception of the House of Lords case and the Manchester case -- correction the Manchester case and the Isleworth cases, there has been full argument; so I think on that basis it is somewhat important for future reference.
MR SANDIFORD: I am obliged.
HIS HONOUR JUDGE JEREMY RICHARDSON QC: There will be a transcript. I cannot tell you when that will be. It will also be given a neutral citation number so it will be available.
MR SANDIFORD: I am very grateful.
HIS HONOUR JUDGE JEREMY RICHARDSON QC: Unless there is anything else? Thank you both.
MR BARRACLOUGH: No. Thank you very much.
MR SANDIFORD: No thank you.