Crown Prosecution Service (Redbridge Section), R (on the application of) v Redbridge Youth Court & Anor

Under section 24 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, a Youth Court should retain summary jurisdiction unless the offence, surrounding circumstances and offender make it more than a vague or theoretical possibility that a long period of detention under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 may be imposed.

The relevant question is whether there is a real possibility or realistic prospect of detention for at least two years. The court must assess the prospect of such a sentence being imposed by the Crown Court, rather than asking whether the offences would attract a sentence substantially exceeding two years. A mode-of-trial decision based on that erroneous approach must be quashed.

The Crown Prosecution Service sought judicial review of decisions by the Redbridge Youth Court concerning a 17-year-old defendant charged with numerous sexual, indecent-image, malicious-communication and related offences. The Youth Court retained jurisdiction after considering sentencing authorities and later refused to reopen that decision.

The parties agreed that the decisions should be quashed, but disagreed about whether the matter should be remitted for reconsideration. The central issues were the correct approach under section 24 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and the appropriate consequential order.

1. The decisions were quashed. The Youth Court’s original mode-of-trial decision applied the wrong test. It asked whether the offences would attract a sentence substantially in excess of two years, rather than whether there was a real possibility or realistic prospect that the Crown Court might impose detention for two years or more.
2. Section 24 requires the Youth Court to consider the offence, the surrounding circumstances and the offender. It should begin with a strong presumption against sending a young defendant to the Crown Court. Trial in the Crown Court is reserved for the most serious cases.
3. The possibility of detention under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 need not arise only in a case of exceptional gravity. Nevertheless, section 91 is a long-stop power reserved for very serious offences. Since a Youth Court’s maximum detention and training order is 24 months, the section is principally relevant where detention of at least two years is a realistic possibility.
4. The Crown Court’s sentencing jurisdiction is at large if the case is committed for trial. The Youth Court therefore had to assess whether such a sentence was a realistic prospect, not predict that the offences would necessarily attract a sentence above a particular threshold.
5. The Youth Court was also criticised for allowing its Clerk to provide legal advice and draw authorities to its attention outside open court, depriving the parties of an opportunity to comment.
6. The alleged offending included numerous aggravating features, including the defendant’s age, breach of trust, premeditation, threats, sophisticated planning and sexual gratification. In those circumstances, detention of two years or more was a real possibility or realistic prospect. The whole matter was remitted to the Youth Court for determination in accordance with the judgment.

This was a judicial review in the Administrative Court of decisions made by the Redbridge Youth Court on 18 and 22 February 2005. The Administrative Court quashed both decisions and remitted the matter to the Youth Court.