S v Folkestone Youth Court Justices

When deciding whether to commit a defendant under 18 to the Crown Court under Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, the Youth Court must begin with a strong presumption that the case should remain in the Youth Court. Committal is justified only where a sentence of long-term detention under the statutory provisions is a real possibility, rather than a vague or theoretical possibility. The assessment concerns venue, not sentence, and allows a reasonable borderline range. The defendant’s age, the youth justice objective of preventing offending, and the likely reduction in sentence attributable to youth are relevant. A decision to commit is unlawful where, taking those matters into account, the possibility of the requisite sentence is insufficiently real.

The claimant, aged 16 and with no previous convictions, was charged with perverting the course of public justice after making a false allegation of robbery. The Folkestone Youth Court committed him to the Crown Court for trial under section 24(1)(a) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. The issue was whether the Youth Court’s decision was wrong in law, applying the judicial-review standard that the High Court must determine whether the decision was wrong rather than substitute its own view.

1. The claim was allowed and the decision to commit the claimant to the Crown Court for trial was quashed.
2. Under section 24 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, the Youth Court should start with a strong presumption against sending a young defendant to the Crown Court. The statutory exception applies only where the offence and the circumstances make it a real possibility that a sentence of long-term detention under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 may be imposed. A vague or theoretical possibility is insufficient. This approach, expressed in R (On Application of C and D) v Sheffield Youth Court and R (On Application of N) v Sheffield Youth Court [2003] EWHC 35 Admin, was applied.
3. The guidance in R (On Application of Crown Prosecution Service Redbridge Section) v Redbridge Youth Court and BS [2005] EWHC 1390 Admin confirmed that trials should ordinarily take place in the Youth Court and that Crown Court trials should be reserved for the most serious cases. The relevant question was whether a sentence of at least two years was a genuine possibility, given the Youth Court’s maximum detention and training order of 24 months.
4. The venue decision is not itself a sentencing decision. It permits some elasticity at the borderline, so that a reasonably made decision may sometimes go either way, as explained in C and Others v Croydon Youth Court and Central Hertfordshire Youth Court [2006] EWHC 2627. Nevertheless, the claimant’s age and the likely discount attributable to youth made a sentence of the necessary length insufficiently realistic.
5. The court also had regard to section 37 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, whose principal aim is preventing offending by children and young persons. The undesirability of imposing avoidable long sentences on young persons, recognised in Mills [1998] 2 Cr App R (Sentencing) 128, reinforced the conclusion. If, after trial, the magistrates considered their sentencing powers inadequate, the case could be committed to the Crown Court for sentence.

1. Folkestone Youth Court: committed the claimant to the Crown Court for trial under section 24(1)(a) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): held the committal decision manifestly wrong and quashed it.