H v Balham Youth Court & Anor

A Youth Court dealing with a person aged 15 to 17 should commit an indictable offence to the Crown Court only where there is a real possibility of a custodial sentence exceeding two years. Otherwise it should try the case summarily. If the court has wrongly assessed that possibility, its decision may be quashed by judicial review.

Once a Youth Court has begun committal proceedings, section 25 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 permits it to revert to summary trial where the case ought to be tried summarily. That discretion must be exercised lawfully when a material charge is withdrawn.

The claimant, aged 15, faced two robbery charges in the Balham Youth Court. On 18 March 2003 the court declined summary jurisdiction because it considered that a Crown Court sentence exceeding two years was a real possibility under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

By the committal hearing on 22 April, the more serious robbery charge had been withdrawn, leaving one charge involving the theft of a mobile telephone and a bus pass. The claimant sought judicial review of both decisions, arguing that the Youth Court should have retained, or resumed, summary jurisdiction.

1. First decision. The challenge to the decision of 18 March 2003 failed. For a person aged 15 to 17 charged with an offence within section 91(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, the Youth Court should commit if there is a real possibility of detention exceeding two years. On the original charges, the alleged second robbery involved violence, racial abuse, a home invasion and continuing injury. The court was entitled to find that a sentence exceeding two years was a real possibility.
2. Second decision. The remaining robbery, considered alone, was serious but a 15-year-old offender would not have received more than two years' detention. Youth is a mitigating factor, with greater mitigation applying to a younger offender. The relevant sentencing guidance for mobile-phone robberies was applied.
3. Section 25(5) to (7) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 governs the court's powers after it has begun the relevant hearing. A magistrates' court cannot reopen its original mode-of-trial decision before embarking on the summary trial or committal inquiry. Once the hearing has begun, however, section 25 confers the stated powers, which must be exercised lawfully.
4. On 22 April the Youth Court was conducting the committal inquiry when the more serious charge had been abandoned. Section 25(7) applied. In those circumstances, the only proper exercise of the discretion was to switch to summary trial. The committal decision was therefore unlawful and was quashed, with a mandatory order that the Youth Court try the claimant summarily. There was no order as to costs, save detailed assessment of the publicly funded claimant's costs.

This was a judicial review claim in the Divisional Court. The judgment does not state any earlier appellate decision in the same proceedings.