C, R (on the application of) v Sussex (Central) Magistrates' Court

A youth court should retain jurisdiction unless the offence, its circumstances and the offender make it more than a vague or theoretical possibility that the Crown Court will impose detention approaching two years or more under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. There is a strong presumption in favour of trial in the Youth Court. The assessment must focus on the likely sentence for the particular young offender, not on the sentence an adult with a criminal record might receive. Seriousness alone is insufficient.

C, aged 14 when the alleged offences were committed, was charged with burglary and criminal damage after entering a dwelling and causing extensive damage. The Brighton Youth Court declined jurisdiction under section 24(1)(a) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and committed the charges to the Crown Court.

C sought judicial review. The issue was whether, having regard to his age and good character, it was more than a vague or theoretical possibility that the Crown Court would impose detention under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

The application was allowed. The committal should not have occurred. The case was remitted to the Youth Court for disposal as expeditiously as possible, with the section 39 order under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 maintained meanwhile.

1. Under section 24(1)(a) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, a youth court should decline jurisdiction only where the offence, its surrounding circumstances and the offender make it more than a vague or theoretical possibility that a long period of detention may be imposed.

2. The guidance in the Manchester, Thetford and Southampton decisions required a strong presumption against sending young offenders to the Crown Court. The case must be so serious that detention above two years is required, or that a custodial sentence approaching the normally applicable two-year limit is realistically required.

3. The adult authorities Winn and Brewster did not determine the issue. The later burglary guidance in McInerney and Keating treated the alleged offending as a standard first-time domestic burglary with high-level vandalism aggravation and first-offence mitigation. The adult starting point was 18 months, before allowances for a guilty plea and youth.

4. The principles in Ghafoor, applied in LM, were also relevant. Although the sentencing regime depends on age at conviction, the sentence likely at the date of offending is a powerful factor. Given C’s age and good character, it was highly improbable that the Crown Court would impose detention under section 91.

5. Mr Justice Scott Baker agreed with the judgment and order.

The Brighton Youth Court declined jurisdiction and committed the charges to the Crown Court. The Crown Court adjourned the proceedings to permit this application. Permission to proceed was granted by Lightman J. The Administrative Court allowed the application and remitted the case to the Youth Court.