Darykie Ramos Molina, R (on the application of) v Crown Court at Snaresbrook

The statutory procedure governing a prosecution appeal against the grant of bail must be strictly followed because it protects personal liberty and promotes legal certainty. Where the magistrates’ court has formally disposed of a bail appeal under section 1(7) of the Bail (Amendment) Act 1993, the Crown Court has no jurisdiction to re-determine that appeal. Any challenge to the magistrates’ procedural disposal must be brought by judicial review. The Crown Court cannot obtain jurisdiction merely because the defendant’s case has been sent to it, or because the bail appeal has been listed there. Nor may it bypass the statutory safeguards by conducting an early bail review under general powers.

The claimant was granted conditional bail by Barkingside Magistrates’ Court after being sent to the Crown Court for trial. The prosecution purported to give oral notice of appeal but failed to serve written notice on the claimant within two hours. The claimant was released, and the magistrates formally disposed of the appeal under section 1(7) of the Bail (Amendment) Act 1993.

The matter was nevertheless listed before Snaresbrook Crown Court. The judge held that the Crown Court had jurisdiction, allowed the prosecution’s purported appeal and remanded the claimant in custody. The central issue was whether the Crown Court had jurisdiction after the magistrates’ formal disposal of the bail appeal.

1. Judicial review granted. The Crown Court had no jurisdiction to determine or allow the prosecution’s purported appeal against the claimant’s conditional bail.
2. The statutory provisions governing prosecution appeals against bail are mandatory. They must be carefully construed to promote legal certainty because non-compliance may result in unjustified deprivation of liberty. The court accepted the general contextual principle stated in Middlesex Guildhall Crown Court, Ex p. Okoli.
3. The evidence established that the claimant did not receive written notice of the prosecution’s intention to appeal as required by section 1(5) of the Bail (Amendment) Act 1993. The oral notice was directed to the magistrates’ legal adviser, was not clearly audible to the claimant or custody staff, and the claimant was released. No application was made under Criminal Procedure Rule 4.10(f) for service on the claimant’s legal representatives to count as service on him.
4. The magistrates formally disposed of the appeal under section 1(7). That disposal could not be ignored or administratively transferred to the Crown Court. If the prosecution considered the disposal legally wrong, its remedy was judicial review. The Crown Court could not re-litigate the issue.
5. The claimant’s case had been sent to the Crown Court under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1988, but that did not confer jurisdiction to hear the disposed bail appeal. Listing the matter as an appeal could not create jurisdiction.
6. Using an early listing and general bail-review powers would bypass the protections prescribed by the 1993 Act. The court therefore granted declarations that the Crown Court lacked jurisdiction to determine the appeal and to allow it or remand the claimant in custody.

The judgment concerns a judicial review of determinations made by HHJ Dean at Snaresbrook Crown Court on 15 November 2022. The Divisional Court granted judicial review and declaratory relief.