Rahmdezfouli, R (on the application of) v Crown Court Sitting At Wood Green & Anor

A magistrates’ court may exercise jurisdiction over an either-way offence only after complying with the statutory procedure for obtaining the accused’s indication of plea. The court must itself explain the procedure and possible consequences in ordinary language. An advocate’s advice cannot replace that statutory explanation.

Where Parliament intended compliance to confer jurisdiction, failure to comply is jurisdictional rather than a curable procedural irregularity. Subsequent proceedings are invalid and any resulting conviction must be quashed.

The claimant pleaded guilty at the magistrates’ court to an either-way planning offence and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence. The magistrates’ court had not followed the procedure required by section 17A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. The Crown Court refused his application to vacate the plea.

On judicial review, the Administrative Court considered whether the omission was a curable procedural failure or deprived the magistrates’ court of jurisdiction.

1. Claim allowed. The magistrates’ court’s failure to comply with section 17A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 meant that it acted without jurisdiction. The conviction and consequential Crown Court proceedings were invalid and a nullity. The conviction was quashed and the Interested Party was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs.
2. The approach in R v Ashton and Others [2006] 2 Cr App R 15 required the court first to determine whether Parliament intended non-compliance to invalidate what followed. If not, it should consider the interests of justice and any real possibility of prejudice. That approach was not disapproved in R v Clarke and McDaid [2008] 1 WLR 338.
3. Section 17A required the court itself to explain the procedure and consequences in ordinary language. Advice from counsel could not satisfy that statutory duty.
4. R v Cockshott and Others (1898) 1 QB, R v Kent Justices ex parte Machin [1952] 36 CAR 23 and R v Horseferry Road Magistrates Court, ex parte Constable [1981] Crim LR 504 supported treating the omission as fundamental. R v Haye [2002] EWCA Crim 2476 was distinguishable because it concerned a different statutory procedure after a valid transfer to the Crown Court.

The judgment records that the Crown Court refused the claimant’s application to vacate his guilty plea. The claimant then brought these judicial review proceedings.