Merritt, R (on the application of) v Peterborough Magistrates' Court

Where a sentencing court gives an indication sufficiently clear to create a legitimate expectation, it should ordinarily act consistently with that indication. Departure is lawful only where there are reasons justifying it. A conditional indication must be understood according to the condition actually stated. A court cannot later depart for a different reason and commit the defendant for sentence in the Crown Court.

The claimant pleaded guilty before the magistrates to assault occasioning actual bodily harm and assault by beating. On the first hearing, the magistrates decided that their sentencing powers were sufficient, subject only to reviewing that decision if the injuries proved more serious. On the return hearing, with no further injury evidence, they decided that their powers were inadequate and committed the claimant to the Crown Court for sentence.

The claimant sought judicial review, arguing that the first decision created a legitimate expectation that he would be sentenced by the magistrates unless the injuries proved more serious. The issue was whether the later committal decision was lawful.

1. The application was allowed. The decision to commit the claimant to the Crown Court for sentence was quashed, and the case was remitted to the magistrates for sentence.

2. The governing principle, stated in R v Nottingham Magistrates' Court ex parte Davidson [2000] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 169, is that an indication given at a preliminary stage of sentencing may create a legitimate expectation. Where the indication is sufficiently unqualified, a later court should ordinarily adjust its decision to conform to it unless there are reasons justifying departure.

3. The first hearing created an unequivocal assurance. The only qualification was that the position might be reviewed if the injuries proved more serious, for example if bones had been broken. That condition did not occur. The absence of further information or the contents of the pre-sentence report did not justify replacing the earlier decision with a committal for sentence.

4. The court also considered R (on the application of) Harrington v Bromley Magistrates' Court, where a conditional indication concerning dangerousness was held to fall within the same principle.

Mr Justice David Clarke agreed with Lord Justice Scott Baker.

This was a judicial review application concerning the decision of Peterborough Magistrates' Court. The Divisional Court quashed the committal decision and remitted the case to the magistrates for sentence.