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

On judicial review of refusal of bail on a murder charge, the court must address the specific statutory test in paragraph 6ZA of Schedule 1 to the Bail Act 1976. General references to risk or exceptional circumstances do not demonstrate that the correct question has been asked. Judicial review remains available where the decision is legally flawed, including through failure to consider relevant matters or give adequate reasons. The refusal was quashed and remitted to a different judge.

The claimant, charged with murder, sought judicial review of a refusal of bail by a judge of the Central Criminal Court. He accepted that the refusal was not irrational in the narrow sense, but argued that the judge had applied the wrong legal approach and had failed to address material matters, including proposed bail conditions, sureties, character evidence and medical evidence.

The Administrative Court considered the statutory bail regime, the scope of judicial review of Crown Court bail decisions, and whether the ruling sufficiently demonstrated application of the applicable legal tests.

1. Outcome. The claim for judicial review was granted. The refusal of bail was quashed and the matter remitted to a different judge at the Central Criminal Court for reconsideration.
2. Judicial review. Judicial review jurisdiction exists through the prerogative remedies preserved by section 17(6)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Review proceeds on Wednesbury principles, robustly applied, while respecting the experience of Crown Court judges. Those principles include failure to take relevant considerations into account and taking legally irrelevant matters into account, as well as irrationality in the narrower sense.
3. Applicable bail test. The ordinary provisions in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Schedule 1 to the Bail Act 1976 remained relevant in general cases. For a murder charge, however, paragraph 6ZA required consideration of whether there was a significant risk that the defendant would commit an offence on bail causing, or likely to cause, physical or mental injury to another person. References to an unspecified risk and exceptional grounds raised concern that the wrong statutory test had been applied.
4. Reasons. Read as a whole, the ruling did not explain how it dealt with proposed restrictions, sureties, character and community ties, or medical evidence. Reasons assist the reviewing court, inform the losing party why it lost, and enable the decision-maker to check that the relevant considerations and legal questions have been addressed. The cumulative defects made the decision legally unsustainable.

This was a first-instance judicial review in the Administrative Court. The refusal of bail was made by a judge of the Central Criminal Court on 2 May 2012. It was quashed and remitted for reconsideration by a different judge.