W (A Minor), R (on the application of) v Leeds Crown Court

A child validly committed to the Crown Court for trial with an adult must ordinarily be tried there, even if the adult later pleads guilty, unless legislation provides a power of remission. The court cannot read such a power into legislation merely because it would be desirable and consistent with the policy that children should generally be tried in the youth court. Correcting an obvious drafting error is permissible only where the court is abundantly sure of the statutory purpose, the legislative inadvertence, and the substance of the provision Parliament would have enacted. Those conditions were not met.

A 14-year-old defendant was jointly charged with an adult and committed to the Crown Court under Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. The adult pleaded guilty, leaving the child to face trial alone. The Recorder of Leeds concluded that he had no power to remit the child to the youth court for trial. The child sought judicial review, arguing that the Crown Court could either revisit the mode-of-trial decision or interpret section 29 of the 1980 Act as conferring an equivalent power of remission. The central issue was whether the court could supply that statutory power by interpretation.

1. The claim was dismissed. The judicial review was competent because the challenge concerned the Crown Court's jurisdiction, rather than a matter relating to trial on indictment within section 29(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
2. The statutory scheme generally requires charges against children and young persons to be heard in the youth court, subject to defined exceptions. A joint charge with an adult may justify committal to the Crown Court under sections 24(1)(b) and 6(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. Once validly committed, however, there was no express power enabling the Crown Court to remit the child for trial in the youth court merely because the adult pleaded guilty.
3. Section 8(2) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 permitted remission for sentence after conviction, but did not apply to an unconvicted defendant or authorise remission for trial. Section 66 of the Courts Act 2003 did not assist because the case was no longer before the magistrates' court and the Crown Court judges were acting in that capacity.
4. Applying the principles in Inco Europe v First Choice Distribution [2000] 1 WLR 586, the court could correct only a plain drafting mistake and had to be abundantly sure of the statutory purpose, the inadvertence, and the substance of the omitted provision. Section 29 was a detailed provision dealing specifically with magistrates' courts. Its recent amendment and the surrounding criminal justice legislation made it impossible to be sufficiently sure that Parliament had inadvertently omitted a Crown Court power from that section.
5. The court recognised the strong policy favouring trial of children in the youth court and considered the absence of a remission power a matter requiring Parliamentary attention. That policy could not justify judicial legislation. The Recorder's decision was upheld and the claim dismissed.

The judgment itself describes the claim as an expedited judicial review of the Recorder of Leeds's ruling dated 19 July 2011. The claim form was lodged on 21 July 2011 and permission was granted the same day.