Bentham, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Prison Wandsworth: Admn 7 Feb 2006

The defendant sought a writ of habeas corpus, saying that he had been wrongfully committed to the crown court under the 1998 Act. The note referred only to a ‘conspiracy without further specification. The crown court had remitted him to the magistrates on this basis.
Held: The tail must not be allowed to wag the dog. The decision of substance is that of magistrates under section 51(1) of the 1998 Act, to send the person to the Crown Court for trial. Only thereafter and then by way of an administrative act, is the notice prepared. No particular form is prescribed for the section 51(7) notice.
Hooper LJ, Gross J
[2006] EWHC 121 (Admin)
Bailii
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 5197), Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 7.2
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v McGrath CACD 2003
The section 51(7) notice stated that the person had been sent for trial to the Crown Court ‘on the following indictable only offence: burglary, aggravated.’ Apart from the misspelling, the point was taken on appeal that the notice did not make clear . .
CitedRegina v Carey 1983
Magistrates had failed to sign the committal papers when sending the case to the crown court.
Held: Applying Hall, the committal remained effective. . .
CitedFehily and Others v Governor of Wandsworth Prison and Another Admn 19-Jun-2002
The defendants had been sent direct for trial under the section, being charged with indictable only offences, but the prosecution had failed to serve the necessary evidence and documents within the time limit. No application was made by the . .
CitedRegina v Soneji and Bullen HL 21-Jul-2005
The defendants had had confiscation orders made against them. They had appealed on the basis that the orders were made more than six months after sentence. The prosecutor now appealed saying that the fact that the order were not timely did not . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Jeyeanthan; Ravichandran v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 21-May-1999
The applicant had failed to comply with the Rules in not using the form prescribed for appliying for leave to appeal against a special adjudicator’s decision to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. The application, by letter, included all the relevant . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 February 2021; Ref: scu.238413