C, R (on the application of) v Grimsby & Cleethorpes Magistrates Court

A magistrates’ court generally has a single opportunity to determine the mode of trial. It may reopen that decision only within the circumstances expressly permitted by Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, section 25. An earlier decision remains a decision even if it was made in error or without taking a relevant statutory provision into account. A court cannot create a general power to reconsider mode of trial outside the statutory scheme. A later decision committing a youth for trial in the Crown Court, after the Youth Court had decided to retain jurisdiction, was therefore unlawful.

The claimant, aged under 18, was charged with offences under sections 18 and 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The Youth Court committed the section 18 charge to the Crown Court but, on 26 November 2003, retained jurisdiction over the section 20 charge.

On 22 March 2004, after the prosecution sought a joint Crown Court trial, the Youth Court treated its earlier decision as no determination and committed both charges. The claimant sought judicial review, arguing that the Youth Court had no power to reopen the mode-of-trial decision. The central issue was whether the statutory scheme permitted that reconsideration.

1. The application for judicial review succeeded and the decision of 22 March 2004 committing the claimant for trial in the Crown Court was quashed.

2. The court held that the Youth Court had made a decision on 26 November 2003 to retain jurisdiction over the section 20 charge. The magistrates’ own evidence and correspondence acknowledged that decision. Its possible error, including failure to consider section 24(1A) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, did not deprive it of its character as a decision.

3. Following R on the application of the Director of Public Prosecutions v Camberwell Green Youth Court, the statutory scheme permits only the reconsideration expressly provided by section 25. Section 25(5) to (7) permits a Youth Court to change its position during the relevant summary trial or committal inquiry. It does not confer a general power to reopen a completed mode-of-trial decision.

4. The court rejected the argument that the circumstances fell within section 25. The section 20 offence was not a grave offence within section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, because its maximum sentence was five years’ imprisonment. The court accepted that section 25 did not apply on the facts and statutory framework identified.

5. The subsequent commitment decision was consequently erroneous in law. Mr Justice Henriques agreed with Lord Justice Dyson. A legal aid assessment order was made.

First-instance judicial review proceedings in the Administrative Court. The court quashed the Youth Court’s decision of 22 March 2004.