Brookes, R (on the application of) v Croydon Crown Court

On judicial review of a Crown Court decision concerning bail, the Administrative Court applies a restrained review. It asks whether the decision fell outside the bounds of what could reasonably be regarded as reasonable.

A bail decision may nevertheless be unlawful where it is reached through a perfunctory or predetermined process. The judge should examine the relevant facts, consider whether suitable conditions could address the identified risks, give the parties an opportunity to make submissions on those matters, and provide considered reasons, particularly where bail is refused or withdrawn. The statutory entitlement to bail must remain central to the decision-making process.

The claimant, aged 18, was charged with theft and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He had previously been granted unconditional bail and had attended the relevant hearings. At a plea and case management hearing, the Crown Court judge revoked bail and remanded him in custody, principally because of earlier failures to surrender and concerns about further offending.

The claimant sought judicial review. The court also considered a later reconsideration by the Crown Court judge, but treated the original decision as the decision under challenge. The central issue was whether the original revocation of bail was within the bounds of reasonable decision-making.

1. The claim succeeded. The decision of the Crown Court judge to revoke bail was quashed as Wednesbury unreasonable. The matter was directed to be placed before another Crown Court judge, with bail to be granted subject to appropriate conditions, such as residence and reporting conditions.
2. The Administrative Court adopted and applied the approach stated by Collins J in Allwin v Snaresbrook Crown Court [2005] EWHC 742 Admin. This court is exercising a supervisory jurisdiction. It must decide whether the Crown Court’s decision fell outside the bounds of what could reasonably be regarded as reasonable.
3. The decision under challenge was reached at an early stage, before the relevant facts had been properly canvassed. The judge appeared to have formed a view based on the claimant’s previous bail offences before hearing the full application. That gave the appearance of a predetermined approach.
4. The judge did not give counsel a proper opportunity to address possible bail conditions. Conditions were a fundamental consideration because they might have addressed the concerns about attendance. The absence of that opportunity further demonstrated an inadequate decision-making process.
5. The claimant had complied with bail in the present proceedings. In those circumstances, withdrawal of bail required a reasoned explanation following a full and proper examination of the relevant considerations. If concern about further offending formed part of the decision, that concern should also have been made clear so that it could be addressed.
6. The judgment emphasised that bail applications require a full and proper hearing and considered reasons, especially where the decision is adverse to the applicant. Judges must bear in mind the statutory entitlement to bail. The court stated that applications for judicial review of bail decisions should remain infrequent, but this was an appropriate case for intervention.

This was an application for judicial review of a decision by HHJ Joseph of the Croydon Crown Court dated 10 February 2006. The Administrative Court quashed the decision and directed that the bail matter be placed before another Crown Court judge.