Vickers, R (on the application of) v West London Magistrates' Court

Section 7(5) of the Bail Act 1976 involves two stages. The justices must first decide whether a bail condition has been breached. The person concerned must have a fair opportunity to answer the allegation, but the justices are not required at that stage to determine whether there was a reasonable excuse. If breach is established, the justices must then decide whether to grant bail or remand the person in custody. The reasons for the breach, including any reasonable excuse, are relevant at that second stage. A breach is only one factor in the detention decision and does not itself justify custody. This procedure is compatible with article 5 of the Human Rights Convention.

The claimant had pleaded guilty to offences and had been granted conditional bail, including residence, reporting and curfew conditions. After he failed to report as required, he was arrested under section 7 of the Bail Act 1976 and brought before the defendant magistrates’ court.

His solicitor argued that the court had to consider whether he had a reasonable excuse before finding a breach. The clerk rejected that submission and the claimant admitted the breach. He was remanded in custody. Although the criminal proceedings had subsequently been disposed of by sentence, the court heard the judicial review because the issue was of continuing importance and a declaration of unlawfulness was sought.

1. Claim dismissed. Section 7(5) of the Bail Act 1976 requires a two-stage decision. First, the justices decide whether the person has breached a bail condition. If no breach is established, bail must continue on the original conditions. If breach is established, the justices proceed to decide whether to grant bail on the same or different conditions or remand the person in custody (para [16]).
2. At the first stage, the justices must act fairly and give the person an opportunity to answer the allegation and place relevant material before the court. They are not, however, required to conduct an inquiry into whether the person had a reasonable excuse for the breach. Section 7 contains no reasonable-excuse defence to breach of a bail condition (para [17]).
3. At the second stage, the reason for the breach, including any reasonable excuse, is relevant to the decision whether to grant bail or order custody. The breach itself is only one factor. It cannot automatically justify detention, and the court must consider the whole circumstances and the relevant bail principles (para [18]).
4. The distinction from section 6 of the Bail Act 1976 is material. Section 6 creates a criminal offence of failing to surrender without reasonable cause, whereas section 7 provides a procedure for dealing with suspected breach or risk of breach and does not create an offence. The different treatment of reasonable cause is therefore not inconsistent.
5. The procedure described above, including fair consideration of the material before the court, does not breach article 5 of the Human Rights Convention. The claim was dismissed. The defendant received its costs, not to be enforced without leave, up to and including the earlier hearing; an order for legal aid assessment was also made (paras [18]–[19], [31], [34]).

The claim was an application for judicial review of the West London Magistrates’ Court’s decision. Owen J granted leave and ordered an expedited hearing. The judgment does not describe an appeal from another court.