London Borough Of Newham v Jones

On an application to commit for breach of a housing injunction, the court may remand the arrested person in custody or on bail under the statutory scheme. The court must have power to reconsider that decision where circumstances have changed. A dissatisfied party need not immediately appeal where new bail conditions address the risk identified by the judge.

On review, the appellate court should not substitute its own view for a discretionary decision unless it was plainly wrong or resulted from a serious procedural or other irregularity. A judge may properly consider the seriousness of the allegations, the risk of repetition, an earlier admitted breach and the proximity of the alleged victim.

The appellant, a tenant, was arrested after an alleged breach of an injunction obtained by the respondent local authority under sections 152 and 153 of the Housing Act 1996. The injunction restrained nuisance, threats and violence towards occupants of a neighbouring flat. The appellant denied the latest allegation and was brought before the county court as required by the statutory scheme.

The county court adjourned the contested committal hearing and remanded him in custody until the following day under section 155 and Schedule 15 to the Housing Act 1996. The appellant sought bail in the Court of Appeal, offering residence and non-contact conditions. The central issues were whether the county court could reconsider its remand decision after a change of circumstances and whether the refusal of bail was wrong or procedurally irregular.

1. Outcome. Lord Justice Tuckey gave the judgment, with Lord Justice Mummery agreeing. The application for permission, if required, and the appeal were dismissed with costs, subject to detailed assessment of the appellant’s costs.
2. Reconsideration of remand. The statutory power under section 155 and Schedule 15 to the Housing Act 1996 includes power for the court to reconsider a decision to remand in custody or grant bail, at least where circumstances have changed. The practice direction, CCR PD 49(6B), paragraph 2 and paragraph 2.2, supports that construction by contemplating an application for bail and requiring details of any change in circumstances after an earlier refusal.
3. Appellate approach. Where the complaint is that conditions subsequently offered would prevent further trouble, the Court of Appeal should confine itself to review rather than rehear the bail decision. The decision should not be interfered with unless it was plainly wrong or resulted from a serious procedural or other irregularity.
4. Application. The county court judge was aware of the power to grant bail and could impose conditions. His reliance on the seriousness of the allegations, including a threat to kill, the appellant’s admitted earlier breach and the parties’ close proximity was cogent. The refusal of bail was not plainly wrong, and no serious procedural or other irregularity was shown.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 19 November 2002, the court reviewed the remand decision and dismissed the application and appeal with costs.
• Bow County Court: On 13 November 2002, His Honour Judge Bradbury remanded the appellant in custody until the contested committal hearing the following day.