O v Central Criminal Court

Decisions made by the Crown Court under the statutory dismissal procedure for indictable-only offences are matters relating to trial on indictment. Section 29(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 therefore prevents judicial review of refusals to permit oral evidence or dismiss charges.

Article 5(4) requires a speedy judicial determination of the lawfulness of detention. It does not guarantee an interlocutory appeal against evidential or dismissal rulings where the detention is otherwise lawful. The statutory framework, including applications to the Crown Court, bail procedures and custody time limits, provided adequate safeguards.

The claimant was sent to the Crown Court under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 on allegations including rape, false imprisonment and sexual assault. He applied under Schedule 3 for leave to call the complainant to give oral evidence and for dismissal of the charges. HHJ Hawkins QC refused both applications.

The claimant sought judicial review, arguing that the rulings were outside section 29(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and that applying the jurisdictional bar would breach Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The central issue was whether the rulings were matters relating to trial on indictment.

1. Application dismissed. The Divisional Court followed R (Snelgrove) v Woolwich Crown Court [2005] 1 Cr.App.R 18 DC. A dismissal application under section 51 and Schedule 3 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is a matter relating to trial on indictment. Section 29(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 therefore excluded judicial review of both rulings.
2. The Article 5(4) argument did not justify departing from Snelgrove. Article 5(4) concerns the speedy determination by a court of the lawfulness of detention. It does not require a right of appeal or interlocutory review of every judicial decision affecting a detained defendant. The claimant did not contend that his arrest or detention was unlawful or arbitrary.
3. The statutory scheme supplied practical safeguards. These included review by the Crown Court, custody time limits, applications for bail and remedies for unlawful detention. The claimant had exercised the available procedure, and the inability to cross-examine the complainant at that stage did not make his detention unlawful. The court applied the principle in Jecius v Lithuania that Article 5(4) requires review of the procedural and substantive conditions essential to lawful detention, not an appeal as such.
4. Alternatively, the court considered the merits. Regulation 2(4) of Schedule 3 required oral evidence only where the interests of justice required it. It was proper to consider the burden and stress of cross-examining a vulnerable complainant twice, particularly where a detailed video interview and written material were available. Wide-ranging cross-examination was not justified at the dismissal stage.
5. The refusal to dismiss the charges was also within the judge’s discretion. The relevant question was whether the prosecution evidence, taken at its highest, could permit a properly directed jury properly to convict. Inconsistencies, drug use and material suitable for cross-examination did not fundamentally undermine a clear case to answer. The court declined to certify a point of law for further appeal.

The claimant sought judicial review of decisions made by HHJ Hawkins QC at the Central Criminal Court. Permission was initially refused by Davis J on 7 July 2005, but was granted on renewal by the Divisional Court on 14 October 2005. The Divisional Court dismissed the application and declined to certify points of law for further appeal.