R Alastair George Culley v the Crown Court Sitting at Dorchester
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE FORBES |
| Judgment Date | 12 January 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] EWHC 109 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/105/2007 |
| Date | 12 January 2007 |
[2007] EWHC 109 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Mr Justice Forbes
CO/105/2007
MR DAVID LYONS (instructed by Messrs Ian F Brazier Solicitors, Dorchester DT2 9YH) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
MR M TOMLINSON (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Interested Party
The Defendant did not appear and was not represented
( As approved by the Court )
This is an application for judicial review of the decision of His Honour Judge Beashel, made on 25th August 2006, whereby he remanded the claimant in custody pending his trial. When the matter was considered on paper by Underhill J, he directed that the application for permission and for substantive relief (if the court so decided) was to be listed for hearing today, with notice of the hearing to be given to the defendant and interested parties. Having considered the submissions in this matter, I am satisfied that an extension of time and permission to apply should be granted.
My reasons for granting the necessary extension of time, can be stated very shortly. The extension of time required is relatively modest and, although the reasons for the delay are not wholly persuasive, this is a case where, having considered the merits of the substantive application, I am satisfied that it would be unjust to deny the claimant appropriate relief for reasons of delay. The case raises an interesting and important point which I am satisfied ought to be dealt with on a substantive application.
The brief facts are these. On 17th September 2005 an incident occurred which gave rise to the original offence charged against this claimant, namely one of violent disorder. On 17th October 2005, the claimant was arrested and remanded to the magistrates' court. On 18th October 2005, the claimant was granted bail with various conditions, including a condition of residence and the need to observe a curfew between certain stipulated hours.
On 13th October 2005, the committal proceedings were adjourned until 20th December 2005. The claimant's bail conditions were varied in various ways to which it is not necessary to refer. On 20th December 2005, the whole of the matter was transferred to the Dorchester Crown Court for trial, with bail as before. On 23rd December 2005, the claimant was arrested in respect of an allegation of witness intimidation. He was charged and given police bail on condition that he did not enter Dorset except for court appearances. On 28th December 2005, there was a plea and case management hearing at Dorchester Crown Court, as a result of which, amongst other things, the claimant was once more granted bail, with conditions of residence and curfew. On 21st March 2006, the claimant was re-bailed on the same conditions as 28th December in connection with all the offences in respect of which he was then charged.
On 2nd June 2006, the claimant was arrested and brought before the Weymouth Magistrates' Court for breach of his bail conditions, having been found by the police walking home with his partner outside the centre of the town after curfew. As a result of that appearance he was re-bailed on the same conditions as before. He was found to be in possession of a class A drug at the time of his arrest and this became the subject of yet another but separate charge for which he was also granted bail.
On 13th and 14th August 2006, the police visited the claimant's address on two separate occasions. On each occasion they knocked at his door after the curfew hour. If the claimant had been observing the conditions of curfew and residence, he should have been in a position to answer the door. However, on both occasions nobody answered the door when the police knocked.
On 24th August 2006, the claimant was arrested pursuant to section 7 of the Bail Act 1976 for breach of the conditions of his bail. Initially, he was taken to the Weymouth Magistrates' Court before being taken to the Dorchester Crown Court, where the adjourned plea and case management hearing relating to his trial was to be held that day, although the claimant was not under any specific duty to attend that hearing.
The judge who dealt with the adjourned plea and case management hearing was His Honour Judge Beashel. The matter relating to the claimant's alleged breach of bail conditions was therefore referred to him. There was a dispute about whether a "doorstep" condition was one of the conditions of bail. In the event, the judge remanded the claimant in custody overnight to enable him to call evidence about the conditions of bail and whether he was in any way in breach of those conditions.
The following day (i.e. 25th August 2006) Judge Beashel heard evidence from the claimant's solicitors with regard to the conditions of bail. He also heard evidence from the police officer. The judge concluded that there had been no "doorstep" condition attached to the claimant's bail, but that his failure to answer the door to the police was evidence from which he could and did conclude that the claimant was in breach of the curfew condition of bail. The judge then remanded the claimant in custody to await his trial. It is that decision which is the subject matter of the challenge in these proceedings.
Although the precise timing of these matters is not available to me today, it is accepted by Mr Tomlinson, who appears on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service, that more than 24 hours elapsed between the time the claimant was arrested on 24th August 2006 and the time Judge Beashel finally completed dealing with the matter on 25th August 2006 (i.e. by making the order remanding the claimant in custody for breach of a condition of bail). The significance of that will become more apparent when I return to the legal principles involved in this matter.
The relevant legislative provisions are as follows. Section 7 of the Bail Act 1976 ("the 1976 Act), so far as material, is in the following terms:
"(3) A person who has been released on bail in criminal proceedings and is under a duty to surrender into the custody of a court may be arrested without warrant by a constable—
(a) …
(b) if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that that person is likely to break any of the conditions of his bail or has reasonable grounds for suspecting that that person has broken any of those conditions; …
(4) A person arrested in pursuance of subsection (3) above—
(a) shall … be brought as soon as practicable and in any event within 24 hours after his arrest before a justice of the peace …
(5) A justice of the peace before whom a person is brought under subsection (4) above may, subject to subsection...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McElkermey v Highbury Corner Magistrates Court
...9 Looked at as a legal point in isolation, the contention derives some support from the decision of Forbes J in The Queen on the application of Culley v Crown Court at Dorchester [2007] EWHC 109 (Admin), in which it was held that a decision has to be reached by the justice, or in that case ......
-
Bartholomew Pinder v The Queen
...v Commissioner of Police MCCrApp No. 133 of 2013 considered Pritam Kaur v Russell & Co [1973] 2 WLR 147 considered R v Culley [2007] EWHC 109 (Admin) considered DPP v McLoughlin [2009] IESC 65 considered Vickers v DPP [2010] 1 IR 548 considered Huey Gowdie v R [2012] JMCA Crim considered ......