QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
MRS JUSTICE GLOSTER
|WOOD GREEN CROWN COURT||Defendant|
|CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE||Interested Party|
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
The Defendant did not appear and was not represented
Mr Q Hawkins (instructed by CPS) appeared on behalf of the Interested Party
Crown Copyright ©
"4. This is an application to rescind bail granted two or three days ago, the circumstances are that premises in Chingford were searched and inside was found (the brief facts were recited by HHJ Ader) Mills pleaded guilty to posession and received 5 years imprisonment. She suggested that the defendant had stored and supplied weapons for others and under the circumstances his sentence would be more than that of Mills. It is not possible to say that even if this defendant and two co-defendants listed at this court and others intended to be joined I am not dealing with their cases I am dealing with this defendant individually. I have taken into account that there are no previous convictions against him however there is also a matter of Class A drugs possession. He is of good character and an Open University student in criminal psychology, I don't hold that agaionst him, and a respectful family background. He has been on curfew and conditions offered coupled with the surrender of passport it is suggested that there is no question of flight risk.
5. Against that the Crowns say that there is serious and significant evidence against him and texts at the time, there is no forensics at the time as Mr Black as advanced eloquently on bail bearing in mind the good character and the fact that he has been on bail for several months and not breached his bail. However the situation has changed and he knows now the kind of sentence he would receive and there is factor in the balance and with such a long sentence and great incentive to not attend your trial and if to resume the ilfestyle risk of further offences. In all the circumstances there should never been given bail in this case."
"The question is whether the seriousness of the offence which the recorder was entitled to take into account justified the concern that there might be a failure to surrender to his bail. The question of whether there should be a refusal of bail based upon the seriousness of the offence has been considered in a number of cases in the European Court of Human Rights and more particularly by the Privy Council in Hurnam v State of Mauritius  1 WLR 857. The approach of the Privy Council through the judgment given by Lord Bingham indicated that the seriousness of the offence, while it might provide grounds for refusing bail, did not of itself without more justify a refusal. It was a factor relevant to the judgment whether in all the circumstances it was necessary to deprive the applicant of his liberty and if that was his conclusion reached, clear and explicit reasons had to be given."
"However the situation has changed and he knows now the kind of sentence he would receive and there is factor in the balance and with such a long sentence and great incentive to not attend your trial and if to resume the lifestyle risk of further offences in, all the circumstances, there should have never been given bail in this case."