Crown Prosecution Service v South East Surrey Youth Court

Pending implementation of the intended statutory amendment, a Youth Court must give effect to both the summary-trial provisions and the sending-for-trial provisions governing defendants under 18. Where those provisions conflict, the court should adopt a coherent approach informed by the legislative policy that youths should ordinarily be tried in a Youth Court. In relation to a non-serious specified offence, dangerousness will ordinarily be assessed after conviction, when the offender may be committed to the Crown Court for sentence. A finding of significant risk of serious harm by further offending requires particular rigour and will ordinarily require a pre-sentence report following assessment by a young offender team.

The Crown Prosecution Service sought judicial review of the South East Surrey Youth Court’s decision of 24 August 2005 not to send Milad Leon Ghanbari to the Crown Court for trial for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He was under 18 and had already been sent to the Crown Court for trial on an unrelated robbery charge.

The prosecution relied on section 51A(3)(d) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, arguing that the offence was a specified violent offence and that the criteria for an extended sentence might be met. The Youth Court instead treated the case as remaining within its summary jurisdiction. The central issue was how the inconsistent statutory provisions should be applied pending the further amendment of section 24 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980.

1. The application was refused and the Youth Court’s decision was not quashed. Although the Youth Court had erred in declining to consider section 51A(3)(d), its conclusion that the case should remain within summary jurisdiction for trial was unimpeachable.

2. Section 24(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, in its then form, required summary trial of a person under 18 unless the offence was grave and might attract long-term detention. Section 51A of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 required sending to the Crown Court where a specified offence was charged and the criteria for an indeterminate or extended sentence appeared likely to be met. A Youth Court could not ignore either provision, despite their inconsistency.

3. Pending implementation of paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the conflict should be approached in light of the legislative policy that defendants under 18 should, wherever possible, be tried in a Youth Court. The Court adopted the policy identified in R (on the application of H, A and O) v Southampton Youth Court [2004] EWHC 2912 (Admin) and approved in R (on the application of the Crown Prosecution Service) v Redbridge Youth Court [2005] EWHC 1390 (Admin).

4. In cases involving youths, particular rigour is required before concluding that there is a significant risk of serious harm through further offending. Such a conclusion is unlikely to be appropriate without a pre-sentence report following assessment by a young offender team.

5. In most cases involving a non-serious specified offence, dangerousness should be assessed after conviction. If the statutory criteria are then met, the defendant may be committed to the Crown Court for sentence.

6. Where a youth is jointly charged with an adult, the Youth Court must exercise judgment between the competing presumptions favouring a joint trial and trial of youths in the Youth Court. Relevant factors include the youth’s age and maturity, comparative culpability, previous convictions, and whether severance would cause injustice or undue inconvenience to witnesses.

The case was to be dealt with by the Youth Court in accordance with this guidance.

This was a judicial review application to the Divisional Court. The judgment does not state a prior appellate decision in the same litigation.