G (a minor), R (On the Application Of) v Inner London Crown Court

Where a convicted youth has an appeal as of right involving a complete rehearing, the merits of the appeal are generally an inappropriate consideration on an application for bail. The court cannot reliably assess prospects where the outcome depends on the credibility of witnesses who will give evidence in the future.

The court should consider whether the position before trial can appropriately be maintained, having regard to matters such as the claimant’s age, character, previous compliance with bail and the likelihood of attendance at the rehearing. Judicial review may be granted where appropriate to enable the court to determine the bail issue.

The claimant, a youth of previous good character, had been convicted in the Magistrates’ Court on 18 July and had remained on bail throughout the remand period before trial. Her appeal to the Crown Court was to be by way of a complete rehearing, but was not listed until 21 November.

The claimant sought judicial review in connection with bail pending that rehearing. The central issues were whether the merits of the future appeal should be assessed and whether bail should continue on substantially the same basis as before trial.

1. Application and outcome. The judicial review application was granted and bail was granted. The court regarded the case as an appropriate one in which to grant permission for judicial review and treat the hearing as the substantive judicial review hearing.
2. Merits of the appeal. Where an appeal from a Magistrates’ Court is as of right and will involve a complete rehearing, consideration of the merits is not an appropriate approach to bail. It is impossible to form a reliable view of the prospects of such an appeal where the result depends on the credibility of witnesses who have yet to give evidence at the rehearing.
3. Relevant circumstances. The claimant’s youth, previous good character and history of being on bail before trial supported maintaining, so far as possible, the position that existed before conviction. The court placed trust in the claimant and her parents to secure her attendance.
4. Warning. The claimant and her parents were to be informed that failure to attend the rehearing would mean that the appeal would not be pursued, the conviction would stand and the authorities could issue a warrant for her arrest.

The judgment records that the claimant had been convicted in the Magistrates’ Court on 18 July and had an appeal as of right to the Crown Court, involving a complete rehearing listed for 21 November. The present court granted judicial review and bail pending that rehearing.