Allwin, R (on the application of) v Snaresbrook Crown Court

Judicial review of a Crown Court refusal of bail is a review jurisdiction, not an appeal. The Administrative Court should intervene only where the decision falls outside the bounds of what can reasonably be regarded as reasonable, having regard to Parliament’s entrustment of bail decisions to experienced Crown Court judges. Bail must ordinarily be granted unless a statutory exception applies. A concern that a defendant may harm himself does not justify detention unless it falls within a relevant statutory ground, such as a substantial ground for believing that an exception in Schedule 1 to the Bail Act applies. The jurisdiction is exceptional and should be exercised sparingly.

The claimant was charged with affray after an incident involving threats to set himself or a van on fire. Magistrates initially remanded him in custody, but later granted conditional bail after a psychiatric report and arrangements were made for him to live with his parents. The conditions were observed and the police did not maintain their objection to bail.

On arraignment at the Snaresbrook Crown Court, the circuit judge reconsidered bail and remanded the claimant in custody, principally because of a perceived risk that he might harm himself. The claimant sought permission to bring judicial review proceedings, raising the court’s jurisdiction, the proper standard of review, and whether the refusal of bail was legally sustainable.

1. Jurisdiction and standard of review. The court had jurisdiction to review a Crown Court decision refusing bail. Section 29(3) of the Supreme Court Act did not create a bar where the decision was collateral to the indictment. Section 17(6)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 also preserved the availability of judicial review and other prerogative remedies. The jurisdiction was one of review rather than appeal.
2. The court adopted the approach discussed in M v Isleworth Crown Court [2005] EWHC 363 (Admin). Intervention should be very sparing. The question was whether the decision fell within the bounds of what could reasonably be regarded as reasonable. It was unnecessary to add glosses to the rationality test by describing the case as one of extreme error. The same restrictive approach applied whether the Crown Court decision was made on a first consideration of bail or effectively on appeal from the magistrates.
3. Application of the Bail Act. The Crown Court had power and a duty to reconsider bail when the claimant surrendered to its custody on arraignment. It had to apply the statutory scheme, under which bail was to be granted unless a reason in Schedule 1 to the Bail Act justified refusal. The claimant had breached no condition and there was no evidence that, under the new living arrangements, he presented a danger to himself or others. The judge’s concern about possible self-harm did not provide a rational justification for detention in the circumstances.
4. The absence of police opposition was a relevant factor, although it did not determine the issue. The court also took account of the claimant’s previous compliance with bail and the material change from homelessness to residence with his parents. The refusal of bail fell outside the bounds of reasonable decision-making. The claim therefore succeeded in this exceptional case.
5. Permission was granted, procedural time limits were abridged, and the matter was remitted to the Snaresbrook Crown Court for reconsideration. Conditional bail was to be granted on the previous terms unless there had been a material change, such as the claimant’s parents no longer being willing to accommodate him. The court gave procedural guidance for future applications: the CPS and Crown Court should be notified; an oral hearing on notice should ordinarily be arranged urgently; interim bail on the papers should be exceptional; and applications should generally be made within court hours to a single judge of the Administrative Court.

There was no appeal. The judgment concerned an application for permission to seek judicial review of a refusal of bail by a circuit judge sitting at Snaresbrook Crown Court.