H, R (on the application of) v South and South-East Hants Youth Court Justices & Anor

A Youth Court should retain jurisdiction over a defendant under 18 unless there is a real prospect that the defendant will require a sentence exceeding two years, or an unusual feature justifies declining jurisdiction despite a lesser sentence. The defendant’s age, including being too young to receive another form of custodial sentence, is not itself such an unusual feature. The seriousness suggested by the labels of the offences is insufficient without assessing the facts and likely disposal. A Youth Court must consider whether custody is realistically appropriate and should apply particular care before committing a young defendant to the Crown Court.

The claimant, aged 14, faced charges under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 arising from alleged conduct towards an eight-year-old girl. The Youth Court declined jurisdiction and committed the case to the Crown Court, treating the offences as grave offences. The claimant sought judicial review. The court granted permission and proceeded to determine the substantive application, considering whether the Justices had applied the correct threshold for declining jurisdiction.

1. Application succeeded. The Youth Court’s decision was erroneous in law and was quashed. The matter was to be heard in the Youth Court expeditiously.
2. The governing approach was that a person under 18 should ordinarily be dealt with summarily. Jurisdiction should be declined only where there was a real prospect that the defendant would require a sentence exceeding two years, or where, even though the likely sentence was less than two years, some unusual feature justified declining jurisdiction.
3. The statutory classification of the charges as grave offences did not determine the issue. The court had to consider the facts and the realistic sentencing outcome. Although the allegations appeared serious at first sight, the full evidential material indicated that a custodial sentence would be wholly inappropriate and therefore highly unlikely.
4. The applicant’s age was not an unusual feature for this purpose. Nor was the absence of a power to impose a detention and training order because the defendant was under 15. The authorities also required Youth Courts to bear in mind the legislative policy that young defendants should, wherever possible, be tried in the Youth Court, and to exercise particular care before concluding that a young defendant presented a significant risk of serious harm.
5. The Justices had either applied the first limb incorrectly, because a sentence exceeding two years would have been disproportionate, or applied the second limb incorrectly, because the defendant’s youth and sentencing restrictions did not constitute an unusual feature.

The judgment states that Walker J considered the application on paper on 30 March 2006 and directed an oral hearing. The Administrative Court then granted permission, proceeded to the full hearing, quashed the Youth Court’s order and directed an expedited hearing in the Youth Court.