Director of Public Prosecutions, R (on the application of) v Devizes Magistrates' Court

The Administrative Court should interfere with a magistrates’ court decision on venue or sentence only in exceptional cases, conventionally described as decisions that are truly astonishing or irrational. That restraint does not prevent intervention where the magistrates misunderstand the appropriate sentencing range or fail to give proper effect to material sentencing authorities. Possession of drugs by a serving prisoner may warrant substantially greater punishment than ordinary possession. Where the correct sentencing range means that only committal to the Crown Court is lawful, the Administrative Court may quash the magistrates’ decision and direct committal.

The Director of Public Prosecutions applied for judicial review of the decision of Devizes Magistrates’ Court to retain jurisdiction over two offences of possessing heroin and cannabis resin in prison. The defendant was already serving a sentence of imprisonment. The magistrates indicated that they were considering a low to medium custodial sentence and adjourned for a pre-sentence report.

The issue was whether the magistrates had misunderstood the seriousness of possession of class A drugs by a serving prisoner and had therefore acted unlawfully in declining to commit the defendant to the Crown Court for sentence.

1. Application allowed. The magistrates’ decision was quashed, and they were directed to commit the defendant to the Crown Court for sentence.
2. The court reiterated the high threshold for judicial review of magistrates’ sentencing and venue decisions. Intervention is appropriate only where the decision is irrational or properly categorised as truly astonishing. The court should be slow to interfere and should not encourage routine challenges to sentencing decisions.
3. That threshold was met. The magistrates had misunderstood the appropriate sentencing range approved by the Court of Appeal for possession of class A drugs by a serving prisoner. The relevant authorities showed that such conduct ordinarily attracted substantially more serious custodial punishment than the sentence contemplated by the magistrates.
4. The court distinguished R. (on the application of Director of Public Prosecutions) v Salisbury Justices, [2003] Cr.App.R. (S) 560. In that case, exceptional mitigation placed the magistrates’ decision just within the permissible discretion. No comparable exceptional mitigation existed here.
5. The court declined to give guidance on the appropriate level of sentence. The proper order was confined to quashing the venue decision and directing committal to the Crown Court.

The judgment concerned an application for judicial review of a decision by Devizes Magistrates’ Court. The Administrative Court quashed the magistrates’ decision and directed that the defendant be committed to the Crown Court for sentence.