Regina (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Camberwell Youth Court; Regina (H) v Camberwell Youth Court: QBD 23 Jul 2004

The DPP sought directions as to the issuing of voluntary bills of indictment to have transferred to the Crown Court, allegations of robbery against youths between 12 and 14.
Held: A child convicted of an offence for which an adult would receive a custodial sentence can receive a maximum youth training order of 24 months. Such an order is available for a child under 15 if he is a persistent offender. If the offence is grave, and an adult might be punished with 14 years or more, the Youth Court can transfer the case to the Crown Court which can order his detention to the same maximum as an adult. Because of the unfairnesses of the voulntary bill procedure, a prosecutor seeking to have a matter transferred to the Crown Court, should normally take the matter for judicial review.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy Mr Justice Treacy

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1805 (Admin), Times 12-Aug-2004, [2004] 4 All ER 699, [2005] 1 WLR 810, [2005] 1 Cr App Rep 6

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts Act 1980 24(1), Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 91 100 101

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina (W) v Southampton Youth Court Admn 2002
The court discussed the principles applicable when sentencing very young offenders: ‘The simple principle underlying the current legislation for sentencing very young offenders is that, generally speaking, first-time offenders aged 13 and 14, and . .
CitedC v Balham Youth Court Admn 22-May-2003
The court discussed sentencing practice on very young offenders: ‘The fact than an offender . . does not qualify for a detention and training order because he is only 14 and not a persistent offender is not an exceptional circumstance to justify . .
CitedC and D, Regina (on the Application of) v Sheffield Youth Court and Another Admn 23-Jan-2003
In making its sentencing decision the Youth Court should take into account any undisputed fact put forward in mitigation, such as the good character of the accused, and the Youth Court must consider the sentencing powers of the Crown Court under . .
CitedRegina v Crown Court At Snaresbrook ex parte Director of Serious Fraud Office Admn 16-Oct-1998
A challenge to a judge’s dismissal of cases, or his refusal to stay an indictment in fraud cases transferred from the magistrates Court, should be by judicial review, and not by voluntary bill of indictment. This would give the defendant a chance to . .
CitedM and W, Regina (on the Application of) v West London Youth Court Admn 30-Apr-2004
The court considered how the sentencing of a youth should be approached: ‘Whether there is a real prospect that a custodial sentence of, or in excess of, 2 years might be required, or is there any unusual feature of this case which might justify a . .
CitedRegina v Bol Joseph CACD 2001
The court upheld a sentence of three years detention imposed under section 91(3) of the 2000 Act on a 14 year old boy who had with others attempted to rob a man of his computer and his wallet. The offence was late at night, the appellant produced a . .
CitedRegina v l Lobban Sawyers and Others, Regina v Q; Attorney General’s Reference Nos 4 and 7 Of 2002 CACD 29-Jan-2002
The appeals concerned sentences for robbery of mobile phones in public places.
Held: Such thefts had become commonplace. The court would not set out to provide sentencing guidelines, but rather to bring together existing guidance. The courts . .
CitedRegina v Manchester Crown Court ex parte Williams and Simpson 1990
If an application to prefer a Voluntary Bill is successful there is no right of appeal, and nor can the decision be made subject to judicial review. . .
CitedConsolidated Practice Direction LCJ 2002
The court gave general guidance on criminal practice. As to voluntary bills of indictment, to protect defendants: ‘save where there are good grounds for doing otherwise – (1) They must receive notice of an application for a Voluntary Bill with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.199477