Sean Ian Howard Sumner, R (on the application of) v Wirral Borough Magistrates' Court & CPS

A sentencing indication by magistrates cannot create an enforceable legitimate expectation that the case will remain for sentence in the magistrates’ court where the proposed sentence is unavailable as a matter of law, or where the case plainly requires committal to the Crown Court. The seriousness of the offending and the defendant’s antecedents may make retention of jurisdiction wholly unreasonable. A later failure to surrender to bail requires the earlier expectation to be revisited and may independently justify committal. Although the expectation does not bind the Crown Court, the Crown Court should be informed of it and take it into account when sentencing.

The claimant sought judicial review of a decision by District Judge Sanders on 31 October 2005 to commit him to the Crown Court for sentence. He had pleaded guilty before a lay bench to theft, dangerous driving, driving whilst disqualified, driving with excess alcohol and driving without insurance. The bench ordered a pre-sentence report, granted bail and completed a form indicating that it had twelve months’ imprisonment available.

The district judge considered that the dangerous-driving offence was exceptionally serious, that the magistrates’ sentencing powers were materially more limited, and that the earlier approach had been based on a mistaken understanding of those powers. The issue was whether the earlier proceedings created a legitimate expectation that sentence would be imposed by the magistrates.

1. The application was refused. The district judge’s decision to commit the claimant to the Crown Court was lawful.
2. An expectation arising from an earlier magistrates’ indication is not legitimate, and cannot be enforced by judicial review, if the sentence contemplated was unavailable to the magistrates as a matter of law. The principle in R v Barking Magistrates' Court ex parte White [2004] EWHC Admin 417 was applied.
3. The magistrates had been clearly wrong to retain jurisdiction. The dangerous-driving allegation involved driving at a police officer, evading a red light, causing substantial damage, driving while over twice the legal alcohol limit and driving while disqualified. The claimant also had relevant previous convictions. On those facts, treating six months as necessarily adequate was wholly unreasonable, and any reasonable bench should have committed the matter to the Crown Court.
4. A subsequent failure to surrender to bail requires any earlier expectation to be reconsidered. It bears on the defendant’s character, conduct and the appropriate sentence, and may itself lawfully justify committal.
5. The expectation does not bind the Crown Court in the same way as a legitimate expectation may constrain public decision-making in other contexts. The Crown Court should nevertheless be told what occurred before the magistrates and should take it into account when determining sentence.

The judgment is a first-instance judicial review decision. It reviews the decision of District Judge Sanders to commit the claimant to the Crown Court for sentence.