Pommell v Crown Prosecution Service

Habeas corpus addresses whether detention is unlawful. It does not provide a route for an accused person to ask the High Court to dismiss pending criminal charges because of alleged abuse of process, insufficient evidence, disclosure failures or breach of article 6. Those matters belong in the criminal proceedings, using the remedies and procedures available there.

Where a later material change is alleged in relation to a refusal of bail, the proper forum is the court exercising the bail jurisdiction. The existence of procedural limits on applications within the criminal process does not transfer those issues to the habeas corpus jurisdiction.

The applicant was detained on remand while facing Crown Court proceedings for attempted murder and a firearms-related offence. He had been refused bail and sought habeas corpus, alleging abuse of process, lack of evidence, disclosure failures, delay and breach of article 6. The application had first been refused on the papers by Morris J, who concluded that the matters raised belonged in the criminal process.

The applicant sought reconsideration under CPR 87.4(2). The central issue was whether the alleged defects in the prosecution case or the refusal of bail made his detention unlawful so as to justify habeas corpus.

1. Application dismissed. The court reached the same conclusion as Morris J: there was no basis for concluding that the applicant was unlawfully detained.
2. Habeas corpus could not be used to invite the High Court to dismiss criminal charges on grounds of abuse of process, lack of evidence or breach of article 6. Those issues arose squarely within the criminal process and were to be addressed there by the applicant’s legal representatives.
3. Any application to dismiss the charges, or to seek a stay for abuse of process, had to be made in the criminal proceedings at the appropriate time and in the appropriate forum. The fact that the applicant considered dismissal unavailable before trial did not make habeas corpus an alternative route.
4. If bail had allegedly been refused on the basis of misleading statements later withdrawn, that matter could be presented to the court with bail jurisdiction as a material change of circumstances or as a basis for reconsideration. The High Court’s habeas corpus jurisdiction was not affected by any restrictions on the timing or availability of further bail applications.
5. The procedural limits governing applications in the criminal process were part of the legal framework applicable to a person held on remand pending trial. They did not establish that the detention was unlawful.
6. There was no basis to issue the writ, order release or give directions under CPR 87.5(b) to (e). The application was dismissed under CPR 87.5(f), with no order as to costs.

The application was refused on the papers by Morris J on 2 July 2020. On reconsideration under CPR 87.4(2), the High Court (Administrative Court) dismissed the application for the same essential reasons.