DPP, R (on the application of) v Camberwell Youth Court

A Youth Court retains jurisdiction over an offender under 15 unless the statutory conditions for Crown Court committal are met. The exceptional power to commit under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 is not triggered merely because the offender cannot receive a detention and training order. The central question is whether there is a real prospect that custody of two years or more might be required, assessed by reference to the gravity of the alleged offending and all relevant circumstances. On judicial review, the High Court asks whether the Youth Court was wrong, not what decision it would have made. A Voluntary Bill of Indictment is exceptional; a jurisdictional challenge should normally be brought by judicial review, with expedition sought where necessary.

Two applications concerned decisions of Camberwell Youth Court about whether defendants aged between 12 and 16 should be committed to the Crown Court or remain within the Youth Court’s jurisdiction. The Director of Public Prosecutions challenged the retention of jurisdiction over ten defendants charged with street robbery. H, through his mother and litigation friend, challenged the committal of three defendants charged with religiously aggravated criminal damage.

The court also considered whether the DPP should use a Voluntary Bill of Indictment instead of judicial review when challenging a Youth Court’s jurisdictional decision.

1. Applicable statutory framework. Under section 24(1) of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 and sections 91, 100 and 101 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, detention and training orders are generally unavailable for offenders under 15 who are not persistent offenders. For grave offences punishable in an adult by 14 years’ imprisonment or more, the Youth Court may commit the offender to the Crown Court under section 91(3) where no other method of dealing with the offender is suitable.
2. The section 91 power is exceptional. The absence of power to make a detention and training order, because the offender is under 15 and not persistent, is not itself an exceptional or unusual feature justifying committal. The Youth Court must consider the gravity of the alleged offending and whether there is a real prospect that custody of, or in excess of, two years might be required. It must also consider the Crown Court’s sentencing powers, undisputed mitigation such as good character, and the fact that the Youth Court is generally better equipped to deal with young offenders.
3. The DPP’s application concerning the robbery defendants was refused. The offence was serious and borderline, but the District Judge had not been shown to be plainly wrong. The High Court would not interfere merely because another Youth Court might have concluded that a custodial sentence of two years or more was realistically possible.
4. H’s application was also dismissed. The alleged cemetery desecration was pre-planned, involved group offending, caused substantial damage and distress, and appeared capable of causing serious unrest. The Youth Court was entitled to conclude that custody of, or in excess of, two years might be required.
5. The proper course for challenging a Youth Court’s jurisdiction is normally judicial review, because defendants receive fuller procedural protection. A Voluntary Bill of Indictment remains an exceptional procedure. If expedition is required, an expedited judicial review should be sought using form N463. The court indicated that a Voluntary Bill would probably be refused in a jurisdictional case unless it was used in a supporting role or adequate grounds for departure from the normal procedure were shown.

First-instance applications before the Divisional Court of the High Court. Both applications were refused.