Lord Janner v Westminster Magistrates' Court
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lady Justice Rafferty |
| Judgment Date | 13 August 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 2578 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 13 August 2015 |
| Docket Number | CO/3768/2015 |
[2015] EWHC 2578 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Lady Justice Rafferty DBE
Mr Justice Irwin
CO/3768/2015
Mr Paul Ozin (instructed by Russell-Cooke) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr Richard Whittam QC and Miss Louise Oakley (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
This application for interim relief is founded in a claim lodged and served on 10 August 2015 in which the Claimant challenges the 7 August 2015 decision of the Defendant, Chief Magistrate District Judge Riddle, that the Claimant is fit to attend court so as to be sent for trial to the Crown Court.
The Claimant pleads that his decision was unlawful and/or irrational under three heads. First, his factual finding was not, on the evidence, open to him. Second, he failed to give any or any proper consideration to an alternative method by which the Crown could begin proceedings, that is by application to a High Court judge for a voluntary bill of indictment ("a voluntary bill") which would not require the attendance of the accused. Third, that enforced attendance would be a breach of the accused's Convention rights.
The argument in play before us is on a basis so narrow as to render unnecessary an exegesis of the route to this court. A précis suffices. The Claimant has been charged with offences which must be tried in the Crown Court and by some means the case must progress to it. The statutory provision for such is the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (infra) contemplating an appearance at the Magistrates' Court, from which he would be sent to the Crown Court.
On 7 August counsel for the Crown and for the Claimant (who did not appear and was not required so to do) addressed the Defendant in the light of agreed oral expert evidence as to the latter's health. Drs Poole and Warner are agreed that his dementia is so advanced as to preclude his understanding of or contribution to legal proceedings. Dr Poole fears a "catastrophic reaction" (a medical term of art to which we will return) and likely distress, irritability and anger were he brought to court. Both doctors addressed fitness to attend in the context of the Claimant's contribution to the legal process as well as his potential discomfort and distress.
The Ruling Challenged
The defendant ruled:
i. "We have heard uncontradicted evidence from experts. In the context of today's hearing he is likely to be distressed. Catastrophic distress, what it means is that the defendant may well become intolerant of proceedings and may indeed leave. I further understand that it will have no long term effects, this is significant ….. [the claimant] is fit to attend for the brief nature of these proceedings ….. all that is required is that he attend this court ….. for a comparatively brief time, he will be free to go should he become distressed and with good will on both sides this can be achieved in minutes ….. the medical view is it won't do him any good but a broader test as far as the court is concerned is what is in the interests of justice. Distressing though it is, [the claimant] is fit to attend for the brief nature of these proceedings."
The Legal Framework
The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 reads, where relevant:
i. "51 No committal proceedings for indictable-only offences
(2) Where an adult appears or is brought before a magistrates' court ('the court') charged with an offence triable only on indictment ('the indictable-only offence'), the court shall send him forthwith to the Crown Court for trial —
i. ….."
There exists no power in the Magistrates' Court to proceed in the absence of the accused.
Discussion and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Adam Umerji
...to the Crown Court in their absence”) and the decision of the Divisional Court in Lord Janner v Westminster Magistrates' Court [2015] EWHC 2578 (Admin). The decision in Janner was concerned with the decision of the Chief Magistrate that Lord Janner was fit to attend court and having set ou......
-
R v Thomas Adams
...1 Cr App R 8, CAR v Welsh [2015] EWCA Crim 1516; [2016] 4 WLR 13; [2016] 1 Cr App R 9, CAR (Janner) v Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2015] EWHC 2578 (Admin); 179 JP 465, DCSt Nazaire Co, In re (1879) 12 Ch D 88, CAAPPLICATION for leave to appeal under section 24 of the Serious Crime Act 20......
-
R v Lee Tarry
...has no power to send a defendant for trial if he is not present. That was the conclusion of the Divisional Court in Janner v CPS [2015] EWHC 2578 (Admin) and that conclusion is undoubtedly right, when considering the terms of both section 51 read in conjunction with Part 9(2) of the Crimina......