Groves, R (on the application of) v Newcastle Upon Tyne Crown Court

The Administrative Court’s jurisdiction to review a Crown Court decision refusing bail after conviction is limited. It may interfere where the decision is Wednesbury unreasonable, a rare occurrence. Continued custody cannot be justified by a general concern for witness safety where the relevant risk is not confined to the period of remand and the defendant cannot receive a further custodial sentence for that purpose. Where the statutory restriction on sentencing after a retrial means that the defendant has already served the maximum possible custodial term, remand solely to obtain a pre-sentence report is unlawful. The appropriate remedy may be to quash the remand decision and continue bail on existing conditions.

The claimant had been convicted at Newcastle upon Tyne Crown Court after a retrial and had already served the custodial sentence imposed following the original conviction. The original convictions had been quashed and a retrial ordered. Following the second conviction, the Crown Court remanded him in custody for three weeks to obtain a pre-sentence report, despite the restriction in Schedule 2 to the Criminal Appeals Act 1968 on imposing a longer sentence after retrial.

The claimant sought judicial review of the refusal of bail. The central issues were whether the Crown Court had acted unlawfully or Wednesbury unreasonably in ordering continued custody, and whether witness-safety concerns justified the remand.

1. The claim succeeded. The remand order was quashed and bail was continued on the same terms.
2. The Administrative Court’s jurisdiction in relation to bail decisions was limited. It could interfere only where the Crown Court judge had acted Wednesbury unreasonably. Such intervention was very rare: R (on the application of Allwin) v Snaresbrook Crown Court [2005] EWHC 742 (Admin).
3. The Crown Court judge had not initially had in mind the restriction in Schedule 2 to the Criminal Appeals Act 1968. Once the restriction was pointed out, the judge should have revoked the remand order. The claimant had already served the maximum custodial sentence that could be imposed after retrial, so further custody could not properly operate as punishment.
4. Witness-safety concerns did not justify custody for the three-week period. Any genuine risk to witnesses would not cease merely because the pre-sentence report had been obtained. The original witnesses and jury were no longer exposed to the risks that had existed before the retrial, and the Crown Court could not impose custody to protect against that factor.
5. The court could make the order despite the prosecution’s absence. It ordered that costs incurred before legal aid was granted be paid from central funds and that the legal aid costs be assessed under the scheme.

• Crown Court: After a retrial conviction, the claimant was remanded in custody for three weeks for preparation of a pre-sentence report.
• Court of Appeal: The claimant’s original convictions had previously been quashed and a retrial ordered.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The remand order was quashed and bail was continued on the existing conditions.