FS v Wakefield Magistrates Court

On judicial review of a youth court’s venue decision, the question is whether the decision was manifestly wrong, not whether the reviewing court would have reached the same conclusion. The court must consider whether, taking the case at its reasonable highest and having regard to the offender’s age, there was a real prospect of a sentence of two years’ detention or more. The assessment allows a reasonable range of borderline decisions. General sentencing authorities and guidelines may inform the assessment, but the court must give proper weight to youth, maturity, culpability and the particular facts. A decision to commit a grave sexual offence for trial in the Crown Court is lawful where it falls within that permissible range.

FS, aged 15 when the alleged offence occurred, was accused of attempted rape of an 11-year-old girl. The youth magistrates declined jurisdiction under section 24 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, considering that there was a realistic possibility of detention exceeding two years under section 91 of the Powers of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

A district judge reviewed and upheld that decision under section 25 of the 1980 Act. FS sought judicial review, alleging errors concerning adult sentencing provisions, youth sentencing guidelines and comparable authorities. The central issue was whether the decision to commit the case to the Crown Court was manifestly wrong or unlawful.

1. The claim was dismissed. The magistrates’ and district judge’s decisions were not manifestly unreasonable, manifestly wrong or otherwise unlawful.

2. The applicable review is whether the venue decision was manifestly wrong, as stated in [2006] EWHC 2627 and approved in [2007] EWHC 1033. The reviewing court must not substitute its own sentencing or venue assessment. A venue decision is not itself a sentence and the statutory provisions and guidelines allow some elasticity at the borderline.

3. The guidance in R (H, A and O) v Southampton Youth Court [2004] EWHC 2912 (Admin) was applicable. Youth offenders should generally be tried in the youth court, with Crown Court trial reserved for the most serious cases. The court must ask whether, having regard to age, there was a real prospect of detention for two years or more, or whether an unusual feature justified declining jurisdiction.

4. The district judge was entitled to use the adult sentencing guideline as a touchstone, provided that a very substantial reduction was made for youth and the circumstances of the offence. Starting with the adult figure did not mean that the adult sentence would be imposed. The relevant assessment had to reflect the offender’s maturity, the victim’s age, the age disparity, the nature and circumstances of the sexual activity, force, penetration or attempted penetration, remorse and plea.

5. The case had to be taken at its reasonable highest on the evidence available. Unsubstantiated assertions about immaturity or intellectual difficulty could not be treated as established facts. Comparable decisions were highly fact-sensitive and did not demonstrate that the district judge’s conclusion was legally misconceived.

The judgment arose from a judicial review of decisions by the youth magistrates and District Judge Mallon. The district judge had reviewed and upheld the magistrates’ decision on 6 May 2010. The Administrative Court dismissed FS’s claim.