K v Croydon Crown Court

In judicial review, the Administrative Court may interfere with a criminal sentence imposed by a magistrates’ court or Crown Court only where there has been an excess of jurisdiction or the sentence is wrong in law. In sentencing a young asylum seeker for deception connected with entry to the United Kingdom, the court must take proper account of the powerful influence which an immigration agent may exert. The claimant’s age and the absence of a responsible adult during asylum screening were material circumstances. Ignoring the agent’s influence in those circumstances amounted to an error of law. Detention was therefore unlawful, and a conditional discharge was substituted.

The claimant, a 17-year-old Ethiopian national, was convicted under section 24(a) of the Immigration Act 1971 after denying during asylum screening that she had previously sought entry to the United Kingdom. She had earlier made an entry-clearance application under a different name, allegedly at the direction of an agent.

The Bromley Youth Court imposed a four-month detention and training order. The Croydon Crown Court, sitting as an appellate court, upheld the sentence. The claimant sought judicial review, arguing that the courts had failed to give proper weight to the agent’s influence, her age, and the absence of a responsible adult during screening. The central issue was whether that failure constituted an error of law permitting intervention.

1. The claim was allowed. The court quashed the decision of the Croydon Crown Court and substituted a 12-month conditional discharge.

2. The Administrative Court does not exercise the same sentencing jurisdiction as the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. It may interfere with a sentence imposed by a magistrates’ court or Crown Court only in the very unusual circumstances of an excess of jurisdiction or where the sentence is wrong in law. The court relied on R v DPP ex parte Eileen McGeary and the judgment of Watkins LJ in ex parte Miller.

3. The influence of immigration agents on asylum seekers is a legally relevant circumstance. Such agents may exercise powerful influence over persons fleeing persecution, and their interests may conflict with those of the asylum seekers. The court accepted the observations in R (Q) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and R (SDT) v Secretary of State for the Home Department.

4. The claimant’s age and the fact that she had been screened without a responsible adult made it especially important to consider the agent’s influence. The pre-sentence report and supporting evidence also indicated that she was a low risk of reoffending and that detention was inappropriate.

5. The lower courts had not properly appreciated the significance of the agent’s influence. Ignoring that circumstance amounted to an error of law. In the exceptional circumstances, detention was wrong in principle and could not be upheld.

6. To avoid subjecting the claimant to further trauma, the court substituted a conditional discharge rather than remitting the matter for further sentencing.

• Croydon Crown Court: upheld the four-month detention and training order imposed by the Bromley Youth Court.
• High Court (Administrative Court): quashed the Croydon Crown Court’s decision and substituted a 12-month conditional discharge.