Tullet, R (On the Application Of) v Medway Magistrates Court

When deciding whether to commit a person under 18 for trial under section 24 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, a Youth Court may consider the defendant's previous convictions. The question is whether, if convicted, it ought to be possible to impose the sentence available under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. Previous convictions are relevant because they may affect the sentence that the Crown Court could properly impose. The earlier authorities excluding disclosure of juvenile records for this purpose were no longer authoritative, in light of legislative developments and the Court of Appeal's guidance on domestic burglary. The general principle remains that a person under 18 should be dealt with in the Youth Court unless committal to the Crown Court is clearly necessary.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Medway Youth Court's decision to commit him for trial on indictment for domestic burglary under section 24(1)(a) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. He was 17 and had admitted the burglary in interview. The Youth Court had been given his previous convictions and took them into account when deciding whether a sentence under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 ought to be possible.

The central issue was whether previous convictions were legally relevant and could properly be disclosed to the Youth Court when deciding whether to accept or decline summary jurisdiction.

1. The application for judicial review was refused. The magistrates were entitled to know and take into account the claimant's previous convictions when deciding the section 24 issue.
2. The statutory question is whether, if the defendant is convicted, it ought to be possible to sentence him under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. It would be illogical to exclude matters relevant to the sentencing court when deciding whether committal is appropriate.
3. The Court considered that the earlier approach in R v Hammersmith Juvenile Court ex parte O ((1988) 86 Cr App R 343), following R v Colchester Justices ex parte the North Essex Building Company Limited ([1977] 3 All ER 567) and South Hackney Juvenile Court ex parte RB and Others ([1983] 77 Cr App R 294), was no longer good law on disclosure of a juvenile's record for a section 24 committal. The distinction between the earlier and current sentencing regimes, together with R v McInerney & Keating ([2003] 1 Cr App R 627), supported that conclusion.
4. Newham Juvenile Court ex parte F ((1987) 84 Cr App R 81) had contained contrary observations, but they were obiter and were expressly not followed in the reasoning adopted here.
5. The principle that Crown Court committal should remain exceptional for those under 18 continued to apply. On the facts, the claimant's repeated burglary and theft convictions, including dwelling-house burglaries and a current conditional discharge, made committal clearly necessary. The court expressed no view on the sentence ultimately to be imposed.

The Vice-President agreed, adding that Ex parte O, Ex parte North Essex Building Company and ex parte RB and CB could no longer be regarded as authoritative on the issue.