Director of Public Prosecutions v The Crown Court at Luton

Where a magistrates’ court record incorrectly shows that an offence was sent for trial after a guilty plea, the Crown Court must determine what actually occurred. It may look beyond the formal record, including at a Better Case Management Form and other reliable evidence.

If the record is bad on its face, the Crown Court may treat the case as never having left the magistrates’ court. The magistrates’ court may then correct the position under Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. Alternatively, where the evidence sufficiently establishes a valid committal for sentence, the Crown Court may sentence on that basis. R v Clark should not be followed on this procedural issue.

The Director of Public Prosecutions sought judicial review of decisions by two Recorders at the Crown Court at Luton. In separate criminal proceedings, the magistrates’ court records appeared to show that offences admitted by the defendants had been sent for trial under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, rather than committed for sentence.

In Toner’s case, the magistrates’ court later corrected the position under section 142 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. In Thompson’s case, the evidence consisted principally of the Better Case Management Form and related records. The Recorders declined to sentence on the relevant offences, relying on R v Clark. The central issue was whether the Crown Court had jurisdiction, or whether the magistrates’ court could correct the apparent procedural errors.

1. The claims for judicial review were granted. The decisions declining to sentence on the relevant offences were quashed.

2. Following the Divisional Court’s decision in R v Butt and R v Jenkins, which this court adopted, R v Clark should not be followed because it was inconsistent with authoritative decisions culminating in R v Ayhan and R v Gould.

3. Where the Crown Court is satisfied that the magistrates made a correct order but the Court Extract contains a resulting recording error, it may proceed on the basis of the order actually made. This includes a case where the magistrates committed an offence for sentence although the record states that it was sent for trial.

4. Where the record is bad on its face, the Crown Court may conclude that nothing capable of conferring jurisdiction occurred and that the case never left the magistrates’ court. The magistrates’ court is then not functus officio and may use section 142 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. A Crown Court judge may also sit as a district judge under section 66 of the Courts Act 2003 and exercise the relevant magistrates’ court powers.

5. Alternatively, the Crown Court may conclude from all the evidence that an either-way offence was committed for sentence under section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2020, and that a summary-only offence was committed for sentence under section 20 of that Act.

6. In Toner’s case, the Court Extract, Better Case Management Form and Legal Adviser’s note sufficiently established the relevant resulting error and valid committal for sentence. The decision was substituted under section 31(5)(b) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, and the case was directed to be listed for sentence.

7. In Thompson’s case, the evidence established that guilty pleas had been indicated, but it did not compel one particular procedural course. The matter was therefore remitted under section 31(5A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 for the Recorder to choose between the two available courses.

8. Judicial review was not excluded by section 29(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, since the issue concerned the Crown Court’s jurisdiction in matters other than trial on indictment.

High Court (Administrative Court): judicial review granted. The Recorder’s decisions were quashed. The decision in Toner’s case was substituted, and Thompson’s case was remitted for reconsideration.