Ali v Crown Court at Kingston

The High Court has no jurisdiction to judicially review a Crown Court decision on bail between conviction and sentence where the decision is a matter relating to trial on indictment within section 29(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. Section 17(6)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 preserves any existing prerogative remedy; it does not create a freestanding right to judicial review despite section 29(3). A post-verdict remand decision is integral to the trial process. Even where jurisdiction exists, review of Crown Court bail decisions is exceptional and must be exercised sparingly, applying a robust approach.

After conviction for arson being reckless as to whether life was endangered, Farhia Ali was remanded in custody by the Recorder of Kingston while psychiatric and pre-sentence reports were prepared for sentencing. She sought permission for judicial review, alleging errors concerning bail, the risk of reoffending or absconding, and the welfare of her children, including her breastfeeding baby.

The Administrative Court considered whether section 29(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 excluded review of a bail decision made between the jury’s verdict and sentence, and, if not, whether the grounds were arguable.

1. Permission refused. Section 29(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 excluded the application. A remand decision between verdict and sentence is a matter relating to trial on indictment.
2. Section 17(6)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 preserved existing prerogative remedies but created no general jurisdiction overriding section 29(3).
3. R (on the application of Rojas) v Snaresbrook Crown Court could not be followed because it had not addressed section 29(3) and was wrong to the extent that it suggested a general jurisdiction.
4. In any event, the claim had no realistic prospect of success. The Recorder had considered the relevant risks and the children’s welfare. Failure to repeat statutory wording verbatim did not establish legal error.
5. The decision was certified for citation in future similar cases. Detailed assessment of the claimant’s legally aided costs was permitted.