The court considered an appeal by way of judicial review of a refusal of bail.
Held: There was jurisdiction to consider a claim that bail had been refused in circumstances which showed that that refusal was erroneous in law, but that it was only in exceptional cases that the Court should intervene. Maurice Kay LJ said: ‘I have no doubt that it is a jurisdiction which we should exercise very sparingly indeed. It would be ironic and retrograde if, having abolished a relatively short and simple remedy on the basis that it amounted to a wasteful duplication, Parliament has, by a side wind, created a more protracted and expensive remedy of common application.’ and
‘The test must be on Wednesbury principles, but robustly applied and with this court always keeping in mind that Parliament has understandably vested the decision in judges in the Crown Court who have everyday experience of, and feel for, bail applications. Of course if bail were be refused on a basis such as ‘I always refuse in this type of case’, or some other unjudicial basis, then this Court would and should interfere.’
A decision as to bail at an early stage of criminal proceedings did not relate to trial on indictment.
Judges:
Maurice Kay LJ
Citations:
[2005] EWHC 363 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Citing:
Cited – Thomassy v France ECHR 1992
The court emphasised the need for a court refusing bail to give reasons. In refusing bail, there was a requirement to examine all the circumstances arguing for or against the existence of a genuine requirement of public interest justifying, having . .
Cited by:
Cited – Wiggins, Regina (on the Application Of) v Harrow Crown Court Admn 20-Apr-2005
The defendant appealed against refusal of bail. He had failed to attend court in time of the day of his trial and said he had overlooked the date.
Held: Collins J said: ‘[T]he question of whether bail should be continued or removed in . .
Cited – Fergus, Regina (On the Application of) v Southampton Crown Court Admn 4-Dec-2008
The applicant challenged the withdrawal of bail on surrender to the Crown Court.
Held: Applying the case of Thompson, ‘bearing in mind the presumption in favour of granting bail and the high threshold that a defendant should only be remanded . .
Cited – S v Northampton Crown Court and Another Admn 7-May-2010
S faced serious charges of defrauding Customs and Excise. After allegations of jury tampering came to light, a decision was made for trial by judge alone, and his bail was revoked. He now sought judicial review of the refusal of bail. He challenged . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223855