Galliano, R (on the application of) v Crown Court At Manchester Minshull Street

Judicial review of a Crown Court decision refusing bail is available only on the narrow ground of irrationality where Parliament has removed the ordinary High Court bail jurisdiction. The court will interfere only if the refusal falls outside the bounds of reasonable decision-making. A substantial risk that the defendant may commit further offences while on bail can rationally justify refusal. The reviewing court may also consider other circumstances supporting the decision, including a risk of absconding, even if that was not relied on as a separate ground, because judicial review is discretionary.

The claimant sought judicial review of a Crown Court decision refusing him bail while his breach of a community sentence was being investigated and reports were obtained before possible resentencing. He had breached the order by attending his first appointment while drunk. The Crown Court judge considered that there was a substantial risk that he would commit further offences while on bail, having regard to his previous convictions and the changed circumstances following the breach.

The central issue was whether the refusal of bail was irrational and therefore susceptible to judicial review.

1. Claim dismissed. The claimant could succeed only by showing that the Crown Court judge’s decision fell outside the bounds of what could reasonably be regarded as permissible. The applicable threshold was irrationality, because Parliament had abolished the ordinary right to come to the High Court for bail. The High Court would therefore be reluctant to review a Crown Court refusal of bail.
2. The claimant remained subject to the presumption that bail should be granted unless there was good reason to refuse it. That presumption did not make the judge’s decision irrational. The claimant faced a realistic prospect of custody on resentencing, had breached a non-custodial order, and had four convictions for offences committed while on bail.
3. In those circumstances, the judge was entitled to regard there as being a substantial risk that the claimant might commit further offences while on bail. That was a rational reason for refusing bail.
4. The judge would also have been entitled to take concerns about absconding into account. Although he had not relied on absconding as a separate ground, judicial review is discretionary and the court would not interfere where the decision was proper in the circumstances.
5. Section 29 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 did not create any difficulty because the matters before the Crown Court did not relate to a trial on indictment. A detailed assessment order was made in relation to the claimant’s legal aid, conditional on the solicitors filing the necessary certificate within 14 days.

Permission to apply for judicial review had been granted by Wilkie J. The claim was then heard and dismissed by Collins J in the Administrative Court.