Burns v Woolwich Crown Court & Anor

A refusal of bail by the Crown Court is susceptible to judicial review, but the jurisdiction is exercised very sparingly. The court applies Wednesbury principles robustly, allowing for the Crown Court’s daily experience in bail decisions. A fresh bail decision is permissible where investigations since the earlier hearing have produced genuinely new circumstances, including prospective further charges. The reviewing court must not substitute its own view where the decision falls within reasonable bounds. The prosecution cannot create a legitimate expectation that bail will continue, because bail is determined by the court.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Crown Court judge’s decision on 17 December 2009 to revoke his conditional bail and remand him in custody. He faced charges of fraud by misrepresentation, blackmail and possession of criminal property. Since the magistrates’ court had granted bail, police investigations had identified further deposits in his account and indicated that additional charges might follow.

The applicant argued that there had been no relevant change of circumstances, that the prosecution’s earlier position created a legitimate expectation of continued bail, and that the decision was irrational. The central issues were whether the Crown Court could reconsider bail and whether its reasons were legally sustainable.

1. Judicial review and scope of review. Appeals to the High Court against refusal of bail by a Circuit Judge had been abolished by section 17(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. However, refusal of bail remained susceptible to judicial review under [2005] EWHC 363 (Admin). That jurisdiction was to be exercised very sparingly. Wednesbury principles applied robustly, having regard to the Crown Court’s experience in bail applications (paras [26], [30]).
2. Fresh consideration of bail. There had been a material change of circumstances. Since the applicant’s unhelpful police interview, investigations had taken place and a decision had been made to bring two further charges. The Crown Court was therefore entitled to consider bail afresh (para [28]).
3. Rationality. The judge was entitled to infer a possible course of similar offending from the proposed further charges, the sums involved and the fact that the alleged conduct occurred while the applicant was subject to a conditional discharge. The decision to refuse bail was within reasonable bounds. It was irrelevant that another court might have taken a different view; the decision could not be characterised as irrational (paras [29]–[30]).
4. Legitimate expectation. The applicant could not rely on a legitimate expectation arising from the prosecution’s indication that it would not oppose bail. Bail was a decision for the court, not the prosecution, and the circumstances could not reasonably generate an expectation that bail would continue (para [31]).
5. The judicial review claim was refused. The respondent was awarded costs, summarily assessed at £500 (para [63]).

The judgment itself does not state an appellate history. It records judicial review of the Woolwich Crown Court’s decision to revoke bail and remand the applicant in custody.