B v Carlisle Crown Court

Judicial review of a Crown Court decision on appeal from magistrates is available in exceptional cases, particularly where there has been a material procedural irregularity affecting the fairness of the hearing. The ordinary remedy for an error of law or evidential challenge remains case stated, and judicial review should be used sparingly.

A trial judge must not assume the prosecution’s role by eliciting non-defendant bad-character evidence without an application and proper notice. Where such intervention creates an appearance of partiality and may have affected a credibility-based decision, the irregularity is material and the Crown Court proceedings may be quashed.

The claimant, aged fourteen when the events occurred, was convicted by magistrates of three assaults occasioning actual bodily harm. The Crown Court dismissed her appeal after hearing the witnesses again.

During the appeal, the judge asked two defence witnesses who were not defendants about previous convictions. No prosecution application had been made under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and comparable questions had not been asked of prosecution witnesses. The claimant sought judicial review, alleging that the procedure was unfair. The central issues were whether judicial review was available against the Crown Court’s appellate decision and, if so, whether the intervention amounted to a material irregularity.

1. The claim succeeded and the Crown Court’s decision dismissing the appeal was quashed. The magistrates’ convictions remained in force, but the appeal could be reheard before a differently constituted Crown Court if sought.

2. Judicial review is not ordinarily an alternative appeal from a Crown Court decision on appeal from magistrates. Case stated is normally the preferable route for alleged errors of law, evidential errors or insufficiency of evidence. However, no rigid rule excludes judicial review. It may be appropriate on a case-by-case basis where there is a material procedural irregularity affecting the fairness of the hearing. Such cases are exceptional and the jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly.

3. Under section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, evidence of a non-defendant’s bad character is admissible only within the statutory categories. Although an application might have been made to admit evidence bearing substantially on witness credibility, no such application was made here.

4. The appellate judge should not, of his own motion, elicit potentially admissible bad-character evidence from defence witnesses in the absence of a prosecution application and proper notice to the defendant. That procedure effectively assumed the prosecution’s role and created an appearance of unequal treatment because equivalent questions were not asked of prosecution witnesses.

5. The issue of credibility was central to the Crown Court’s decision. The inadmissible evidence and the judge’s intervention therefore constituted a material irregularity, even though the Crown Court’s reasons did not expressly refer to the answers and their precise weight was uncertain. The Crown Court costs order was also quashed. The claimant was awarded £647 from central funds.

• High Court (Administrative Court): judicial review allowed; the decision of the Carlisle Crown Court on appeal was quashed. A rehearing before a differently constituted court was directed if requested.
• Carlisle Crown Court: dismissed the claimant’s appeal from her magistrates’ convictions and varied the associated sentence and compensation orders.
• Magistrates’ Court: convicted the claimant of three offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The convictions remained unaffected by the judicial review.