Sonya Sumal v Leicester Crown Court

A Crown Court may impose or vary bail conditions when circumstances change, even where the defendant has previously complied with unconditional bail. The relevant question is whether the statutory grounds for imposing conditions are established at the time of the decision. Judicial review of such an evaluative bail decision is available in an appropriate case, but the court will intervene only where the decision is irrational or plainly unlawful. Under section 5(3) of the Bail Act 1976, reasons for imposing or varying conditions must be given. They may be brief, but they must explain the conclusion reached. A failure to give reasons does not automatically require the decision to be quashed where the decision was otherwise lawful and relief by declaration is sufficient.

The claimant was charged under section 40D of the Prison Act 1952. She had been on unconditional bail since April 2023. On 8 December 2023, Leicester Crown Court imposed a residence condition and required her to surrender her passport and travel documents, principally because the trial had been delayed and she proposed travelling to Saudi Arabia.

She sought judicial review, alleging misapplication of the Bail Act 1976, reliance on irrelevant matters, insufficient weight to relevant matters and irrationality. At a rolled-up hearing, the court also considered whether section 29(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 excluded judicial review of the Crown Court’s bail decision.

1. Jurisdiction. The claim was not excluded by section 29(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. A bail decision at this stage was collateral to the trial on indictment. Judicial review was therefore available, although it should be exercised very sparingly: M v Isleworth Crown Court [2005] EWHC 363 (Admin).
2. Rationality and evaluation. The relevant issue under paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bail Act 1976 was whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the claimant would fail to surrender to custody. The question fell to be considered afresh as circumstances developed. Previous compliance with unconditional bail created no presumption that conditions could not later be imposed.
3. The postponed trial date rationally supported a residence condition. The claimant’s proposed travel to Saudi Arabia, which had no extradition arrangements with the United Kingdom, rationally supported requiring surrender of her passport and travel documents. The conditions were proportionate and not shown to be onerous. A different judge might have reached a different conclusion, but that did not make this decision irrational.
4. The judge’s incorrect description of the claimant as a non-UK national was immaterial. His brusque conduct and improper remark that the co-defendant would suffer did not justify inferring that irrelevant hostility had influenced the claimant’s bail conditions.
5. Reasons. Section 5(3) of the Bail Act 1976 required reasons for imposing or varying conditions. The residence condition was adequately explained by reference to the delayed trial. The reason for requiring surrender of the passport was readily inferable, but was not expressly stated. That was a failure to comply with section 5(3).
6. Grounds alleging irrationality, irrelevant considerations and incorrect weighting were unarguable. Permission was refused on those grounds and on the challenge to the residence condition. Permission was granted on the reasons issue concerning the passport condition, the claim was allowed to that limited extent, and relief was refused save for a declaration. The bail conditions were not quashed.

The judgment does not describe an appeal from an earlier decision. It records a rolled-up hearing of the claimant’s application for judicial review of the Leicester Crown Court’s bail decision dated 8 December 2023.