BH v Norwich Youth Court

Failure to follow the plea-before-venue procedure in section 24A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 is procedural. It does not remove the Youth Court’s jurisdiction to try an indictable offence summarily or invalidate its decision to retain jurisdiction, although unfairness or prejudice may provide grounds for challenge.

When deciding venue under section 51A of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Youth Court must assess whether there is a real prospect of detention exceeding two years, applying the individualised approach in the relevant sentencing guidance. Such cases are exceptional where the facts and circumstances are not yet fully known.

The relevant age for determining entitlement to elect jury trial is the defendant’s age when the court decides mode of trial. Applying a consistent statutory age threshold does not, on these facts, infringe Article 14 read with Article 6.

BH, aged 17 when charged, faced three allegations of rape said to have been committed when he was 16. The Norwich Youth Court retained jurisdiction and directed summary trial. BH argued that the court had failed to obtain an indication of plea under section 24A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, had wrongly retained jurisdiction under section 51A of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and that his anticipated eighteenth birthday gave him a right to jury trial in the Crown Court.

He also relied on Article 14 read with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The central issues were whether the procedural failure invalidated the allocation decision, whether the Youth Court’s venue assessment was legally wrong, and whether domestic law required or permitted later transfer to the Crown Court.

1. Claim dismissed. The Youth Court’s decision to retain jurisdiction was valid notwithstanding that no indication of plea had first been taken.
2. Section 24(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 establishes the Youth Court’s jurisdiction to try indictable offences summarily. Section 24A provides a procedure connected principally with the power to commit for sentence. It does not determine whether the Youth Court has jurisdiction to try the offence. Non-compliance could justify intervention only if it affected fairness or caused prejudice. BH would have indicated a not guilty plea and the same venue decision would have followed, so the omission had no practical effect.
3. The applicable review question was whether the venue decision was “wrong”, requiring the Administrative Court to act as a review court rather than substitute its own first-instance decision. The Youth Court properly applied section 51A in the light of R (DPP) v South Tyneside Youth Court and R(BB) v West Glamorgan Youth Court. The real-prospect assessment is generally made with limited information and need not treat the prosecution case at its highest. The Youth Court should normally retain jurisdiction unless the alleged offending is so grave that detention exceeding two years is a real prospect irrespective of fuller facts and circumstances.
4. The judge was entitled to apply the Sentencing Children and Young People guideline and to conclude that the available material did not establish Category 2 harm under the adult rape guideline. The obsolete approach in Billam could not govern modern allocation decisions.
5. The decisive age for entitlement to elect jury trial is the defendant’s age when mode of trial is determined. The later attainment of 18 did not reopen the completed allocation decision. Section 47(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 did not provide a route for sending an indictable-only offence to the Crown Court.
6. The Article 14 claim failed. The complaint did not fall within the ambit of Article 6; there was no appropriate comparator or demonstrated less favourable treatment; and, in any event, the statutory threshold and Youth Court process pursued legitimate and proportionate aims.

• Norwich Youth Court: on 20 January 2022, retained jurisdiction over the rape charges and directed summary trial.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed BH’s judicial review claim. The Youth Court’s decision was valid and was not legally “wrong”.