Magistrates have no Power to redo Mode of Trial
The prosecutor appealed against a refusal of the magistrates to revisit their decision on mode of trial.
Held: The court had no inherent jurisdiction to revisit their decision, and nor did the sections referred to grant any. Craske would have to be revisited by the House of Lords.
Jackson J after reviewing the cases under the sections, held that where a bench of Justices had considered all the factors placed before it relevant to the exercise of their discretion under Section 24 of the Magistrates Court Act and ordered a summary trial, a differently constituted bench of Justices had no power to re-examine that decision on the same facts.
Jackson J stated: ‘Accordingly, I for my part am not persuaded by any of Mr Perry’s submissions [for the prosecution] that this court should depart from the consistent theme of two decades’ authority concerning the correct interpretation of the 1980 Act, nor should this court depart from what appears to be the clear meaning of those provisions of the statute.’
Section 24 provided for ‘a single decision on the mode of trial. It does not permit serial reconsideration of the same question, whether or not new material emerges. . [S]ub-sections (5) to (7) [of section 25] permit the Magistrates’ Court to change its mind as to mode of trial for persons under the age of 18 during the course of the summary trial or committal proceedings. The statute is quite explicit as to the circumstances in which justices can change a decision as to mode of trial. It is not permissible to read into the Act some vague power to change the mode of trial in other circumstances’.
He continued however: ‘I think it desirable as a matter of policy that magistrates should have the power to change decisions concerning mode of trial (when good grounds exist to do so) even before the circumstances specified in section 25 of the Act have come into existence. It is to be hoped that Parliament, which devotes a great deal of time to the reform of criminal justice, will find an opportunity to make the sensible and beneficial reforms for which [counsel for the prosecution] contends. One would have thought that those reforms may well not be controversial.’
Rose LJ, Jackson J
(2004) 168 JP 157, (2004) 168 JPN 233, Times 09-Jan-2004, [2003] EWHC 3217 (Admin)
Bailii
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
England and Wales
Citing:
Doubted – Regina (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Camberwell Green Youth Court ex parte C W K and A QBD 5-Dec-2003
Magistrates have no Power to redo Mode of Trial
The prosecutor appealed against a refusal of the magistrates to revisit their decision on mode of trial.
Held: The court had no inherent jurisdiction to revisit their decision, and nor did the sections referred to grant any. Craske would have . .
Cited by:
Doubted – Regina (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Camberwell Green Youth Court ex parte C W K and A QBD 5-Dec-2003
Magistrates have no Power to redo Mode of Trial
The prosecutor appealed against a refusal of the magistrates to revisit their decision on mode of trial.
Held: The court had no inherent jurisdiction to revisit their decision, and nor did the sections referred to grant any. Craske would have . .
Cited – Crown Prosecution Service (Redbridge Section), Regina (on the Application Of) v Redbridge Youth Court and Another Admn 8-Jun-2005
The CPS appealed the refusal of the respondent magistrates to decline jurisdiction to hear allegations against a youth.
Held: The magistrates had applied the wrong test, asking themselves whether a sentence substantially greater than two years . .
Cited – ZN and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Bromley Youth Court Admn 9-Jul-2014
The applicants, both aged 16, sought permission to bring judicial review of a decision to commit thme for trial at the adult Crown Court on theft charges along with a co-defendant adult (though 18).
Held: Permission was granted.
Hayden J . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Magistrates, Criminal Practice
Leading Case
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.190497