The Claimant aged 14 appeared before the Magistrates’ Court with a 20 year old Co-Defendant. The Magistrates declined jurisdiction in his case and the Claimant indicated Not Guilty pleas. The Magistrates concluded that it was in the interest of justice for the Claimant to be committed alongside the adult under Section 24(1)(b) of the Magistrates Courts Act 1990 and both Defendants were therefore committed under Section 6 (2) of the 1980 Act to the Crown Court. In the Crown Court the adult Defendant pleaded guilty and his case was accordingly adjourned for sentence. The Claimant pleaded not guilty and it was submitted on his behalf that as the effective link with the adult had been broken, his case should be remitted to the Youth Court for trial. The Crown Court Judge concluded he had no power to do so. He now sought judicial review.
Held: Youth Courts are a specialist subset of the Magistrates Court and a Court of Summary Jurisdiction constituted in accordance with section 4 of The Children and Young Persons Act 1933, as subsequently amended. They sit for the purpose of hearing any charge against a child or a young person or for the purpose of exercising any other jurisdiction conferred on the Youth Courts by or under any Act.
Sir Anthony May P said: ‘There are, I think in theory at least, two possible approaches. The first would be to identify a plain legislative oversight and read the legislation so as to supply an omitted provision which Parliament must have intended but failed by mistake to provide. The second possibility might be to resort to Section 3 of the The Human Rights Act 1998 so as to read the legislation in a way that is compatible with the convention. There is no suggestion in the present case that there might be a declaration of incompatibility, but for my part I think the Claimant’s advisors were right not to press the Human Rights Act route. An over ingenious human rights lawyer might make something of a case for an infringement here of Article 6, or conceivably Article 8, of the European Convention on Human Rights, but the reality is the Claimant would get a fair trial in the Crown Court, and that is accepted. It is only that it would be strongly preferable for policy reasons if he were in the Youth Court’.
Sir Anthony May P QBD, Langstaff J
[2011] EWHC 2326 (Admin), [2012] Crim LR 160, [2012] ACD 8, [2012] 1 WLR 2786, [2012] 1 Cr App R 13, (2011) 175 JP 467
Bailii
Magistrates Courts Act 1990 24(1)(b), Magistrates Courts Act 1980 6(2), Children and Young Persons Act 1933 4
England and Wales
Cited by:
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.
Updated: 21 July 2021; Ref: scu.443636