Bailey, R (on the application of) v Central Criminal Court

When deciding bail, a court must demonstrate sufficient and appropriate consideration of material safeguards offered to address identified risks, including safeguards involving a proposed surety or custodial arrangement. General wording that the court has balanced everything may be inadequate where it does not show that those safeguards were considered. Judicial review may therefore quash the refusal of bail without determining whether bail should be granted. The bail application must then be reconsidered afresh on the current facts, without treating the quashed refusal as the starting point.

The claimant, detained awaiting trial for murder, challenged the refusal of bail by HHJ Hawkins QC at the Central Criminal Court. His father had given evidence, offered accommodation and supervision, and offered to stand surety for £100,000. The claimant also proposed curfew, tagging and related safeguards.

The refusal referred generally to substantial grounds for fearing that the claimant would fail to surrender, but did not expressly address the father’s evidence or the proposed safeguards. The central issue was whether the judge had demonstrated sufficient consideration of those matters.

1. Permission and substantive claim. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted. The substantive claim succeeded.
2. Consideration of safeguards. A bail decision is not an obstacle course requiring express reference to every submission. Nevertheless, in a serious case involving a young defendant, the court had to demonstrate more express consideration of proposed safeguards than appeared in the ruling. The general statement that everything had been balanced did not sufficiently demonstrate consideration of the father’s evidence, the proposed surety, or the curfew, tagging and related protections.
3. Relief. The decision of HHJ Hawkins QC refusing bail on 22 December 2009 was quashed. The court deliberately did not decide whether bail should be granted. That question was to be considered afresh by a judge of the Central Criminal Court, fully informed of all current relevant facts and circumstances.
4. Effect of quashing. Any fresh bail application would be a fresh application. The quashed refusal was not to be treated as the starting point and was to fade completely into history. The court gave no direction or indication that the fresh application should be listed before a different judge, since there was no allegation of actual or apparent bias and no reason to doubt that HHJ Hawkins QC would approach any renewed application with an open mind.
5. An urgent transcript of the judgment was directed to be prepared at public expense and supplied to the claimant, the CPS and the Central Criminal Court.