Regina v Nottingham Justices, ex parte Davis: QBD 1980

On a second or subsequent application for bail, magistrates need only ask first whether there had been a material change in circumstancs since the original order. If there had been no change, there was no need to look at the facts underlying the previous refusals of bail.
Lord Justice Donaldson said: ‘The court considering afresh the question of bail is both entitled and bound to take account not only of the change in circumstances which has occurred since the last occasion but also all circumstances which, although they then existed, were not brought to the attention of the court. To do so is not to impugn the previous decision of the court and is necessary in justice to the accused. The question is a little wider than ‘Has there been a change?’, it is ‘Are there new considerations which were not before the court when the accused was last remanded in custody?”

Judges:

Donaldson LJ and Bristow J

Citations:

[1980] 71 Crim App R 178, [1981] 1 QB 38

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedShaw v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 12-Apr-2005
The defendant appealed a refusal to discharge a restraining order made under the Act in 1999. The order arose from acts of harassment committed by the defendant against his former wife. The court had applied the Nottingham Justices case to say that . .
CitedB, Regina (on The Application of) v Brent Youth Court Admn 8-Jul-2010
Claim by B for judicial review of a decision of the Brent Youth Court refusing to consider a substantive bail application made on his behalf. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.228428