Paul v Wood Green Crown Court

A Crown Court decision refusing bail is reviewable only in exceptional circumstances. Judicial review is unavailable unless the decision is irrational or perverse. The court must consider the statutory presumption of bail and whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the defendant would fail to surrender, commit an offence on bail, interfere with witnesses or obstruct justice. The seriousness of the charge cannot, by itself, justify refusal of bail. It may, however, be considered with other circumstances, including the strength and development of the prosecution case, the stage reached, the prospect of a substantial sentence, and the risk of further offending.

The claimant sought judicial review of a decision by HHJ Ader at Wood Green Crown Court on 7 December 2012. The judge had allowed the prosecution’s appeal against the Thames Magistrates’ Court’s decision to grant bail subject to residence, curfew, reporting, passport-surrender and security conditions.

The claimant had no previous convictions and had complied with earlier police bail conditions. The Crown Court had also been told of a Class A drugs charge and further evidence supporting serious firearms conspiracy charges. The central issue was whether the refusal of bail was unlawful, irrational or perverse.

1. Judicial review and threshold. The claim was dismissed. Review of a Crown Court bail decision is exceptional and requires a decision that is irrational or perverse. The court could not characterise HHJ Ader’s decision in that way.
2. Statutory approach. Under Bail Act 1976, the presumption of bail is displaced where there are substantial grounds for believing that the defendant would fail to surrender, commit an offence on bail, interfere with witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. The statutory test requires consideration of all appropriate circumstances.
3. Relevant circumstances. The seriousness of the alleged offences was not treated as sufficient by itself. The judge was entitled to consider it alongside the Class A drugs charge allegedly committed while the claimant was on police bail, the serious and significant evidence supporting the firearms charge, the escalation of the case, the stage reached, the potential sentence, and the risk that the claimant might resume a criminal lifestyle.
4. The Crown Court judge had fairly weighed the claimant’s favourable circumstances, including his age, good character, studies, family background, previous compliance with bail and proposed safeguards, against the prosecution case and the risks identified. He was entitled to conclude that bail should be refused.
5. Lord Justice Gross agreed, emphasising the drugs matter and the escalation of the firearms case. No separate reasoning affected the result.

1. Thames Magistrates’ Court: granted bail on conditions on 5 December 2012.
2. Wood Green Crown Court: allowed the prosecution’s appeal and refused bail on 7 December 2012.
3. High Court (Administrative Court): refused judicial review and upheld the Crown Court decision.