Choudhry & Anor v Birmingham Crown Court & Anor

A Crown Court recognizance may expressly continue until the conclusion of proceedings. Its obligations do not end merely because the trial begins, proceedings are adjourned, separate trials are ordered, or bail conditions are varied in matters unrelated to the sureties. Even if bail is freshly granted at the start of trial, existing recognizances remain effective where the terms require continuous sureties and the new bail order maintains that requirement.

Forfeiture is not a penalty for misconduct. The surety bears the heavy burden of showing why full forfeiture would be unfair or unjust. The court has a wide discretion to remit some or all of the recognizance, but exceptional circumstances create no legal requirement to remit it. Judicial review examines lawfulness and irrationality, not the merits or the level of remission afresh.

The claimants had entered recognizances as sureties for a defendant facing serious fraud and dishonesty charges. The sureties totalled £400,000 for the claimants. The defendant absconded during trial and was later convicted in his absence.

On 16 November 2006, His Honour Judge Griffith-Jones ordered partial forfeiture, requiring Mr Choudhry to pay £160,000 and Mr and Mrs Hanson to pay £53,300 each. The claimants sought judicial review, arguing that their obligations had ended or that the judge had failed properly to consider their requests to withdraw, their lack of culpability and, in Mr Choudhry’s case, his efforts to secure the defendant’s return.

The central issues were whether the recognizances remained binding and whether the forfeiture decisions were unlawful or irrational.

1. The claims were dismissed. The claimants remained bound by their recognizances when the defendant absconded.
2. The recognizances were taken in Crown Court proceedings and clearly stated that they continued until the conclusion of the proceedings. The reasoning in R v Central Criminal Court ex parte Guney [1996] AC 616 and R v Kent Crown Court ex parte Jodka (9th April 1997) concerned the limits of Magistrates’ Court bail. Those decisions did not govern Crown Court recognizances and were distinguishable.
3. A variation of bail conditions unrelated to the existing sureties did not require the sureties to be taken afresh. Although bail fell to be reconsidered at the commencement of trial, the recognizances remained effective because their terms required continuous sureties and the continued grant of bail maintained that requirement.
4. Under R v Maidstone Crown Court ex parte Lever and Connell [1996] 1 Cr.App.R 524, forfeiture is not a penalty for misconduct. The surety bears a heavy burden of showing why the full recognizance should not be estreated. Lack of culpability is relevant, but it does not by itself justify remission. The court has a wide discretion to remit part or, exceptionally, all of the recognizance. R v Harrow Crown Court ex parte Lingard [1998] EWHC Admin 233 established no mandatory rule requiring remission in an exceptional case.
5. The challenge was supervisory. The court could intervene only for legal error or irrationality, meaning a decision which no reasonable judge could have reached. Judge Griffith-Jones directed himself correctly, considered the evidence and documents, and was entitled to distinguish the Rajputs’ more substantial efforts to secure the defendant’s return. The one-third reductions were rationally open to him.
6. There was no order as to costs.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The judicial review claims challenging the Crown Court’s forfeiture decisions were dismissed.
• Birmingham Crown Court: On 16 November 2006, His Honour Judge Griffith-Jones ordered partial forfeiture of the claimants’ recognizances after the defendant absconded during trial.