Harrington, R (on the application of) v Bromley Magistrates Court

A sentencing indication by magistrates may create a legitimate expectation that the defendant will be sentenced within the magistrates’ powers, including an indication that the case will not be committed to the Crown court. A later decision departing from a properly given indication must itself be lawful and rational. The court examines whether the original indication was lawful and rational, even where the immediate challenge is to the later decision. An indication may be rational where the offence is serious but compelling mitigation and the particular circumstances justify retaining jurisdiction. Once a valid conditional indication has created a legitimate expectation, effect should generally be given to it.

The claimant pleaded guilty to causing grievous bodily harm, contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The magistrates indicated that all sentencing options remained open except committal to the Crown court for sentence, unless a pre-sentence report showed that the claimant was dangerous.

The report assessed the risk of further offending and danger to the public as low. Despite the earlier indication, the district judge committed the claimant to the Crown court for sentence under section 3(2) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. The central issue was whether the district judge could lawfully depart from the indication.

1. The claim for judicial review was allowed and the district judge’s decision to commit the claimant to the Crown court for sentence was quashed.
2. Following R v Nottingham Magistrates’ Court [2001] Cr App R (S) 167, a sufficiently unqualified sentencing indication may create a legitimate expectation that a later sentencing court will act consistently with it. The same principle applies to an indication that a case will not be committed to the Crown court for sentence.
3. Where the original magistrates’ decision is challenged, the court ordinarily interferes only where it was unlawful or irrational. The same ultimate issue arises where the challenge is to a later decision departing from the indication. A properly given indication cannot be withdrawn by a subsequent decision unless the circumstances make that decision irrational or unlawful.
4. The magistrates’ decision was close to the borderline of irrationality but was lawful and rational. The offence was grave, but the claimant had no previous convictions, had shown immediate and genuine remorse, accepted responsibility, and had compelling personal mitigation. Prison overcrowding and its potential effect on an offender with no previous experience of custody were also capable of being relevant. Those matters justified retaining jurisdiction subject to the question of dangerousness.
5. The pre-sentence report did not disclose dangerousness. The conditional indication therefore gave rise to a legitimate expectation which had to be respected.
6. The court ordered costs of £3,500 plus VAT to be paid out of Central Funds under section 16 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

The judgment describes the following prior procedural steps:

• Magistrates’ court: On 26 June 2007 the magistrates indicated that the case would be sentenced within their powers unless the pre-sentence report disclosed dangerousness.
• District judge: On 18 July 2007 the district judge committed the claimant to the Crown court for sentence under section 3(2) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The claim for judicial review was allowed and the committal decision was quashed.