R BG v The Chief Constable of the West Midlands Constabulary (1st Defendant) Birmingham City Council (2nd Defendant)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Fulford,Mr Justice Nicol |
| Judgment Date | 23 December 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 4374 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/1457/2014 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 23 December 2014 |
[2014] EWHC 4374 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Fulford
Mr Justice Nicol
Case No: CO/1457/2014
and
Ian Wise QC (instructed by Jonas Roy Bloom Solicitors) for the Claimant
Alan Payne (instructed by West Midlands Police Joint Legal Services) for the 1 st Defendant
Jonathan Cowen (instructed by Legal Services, Birmingham City Council) for the 2 nd Defendant
Hearing dates: 31 July 2014
Introduction
It is said by counsel on behalf of the claimant, Mr Wise Q.C., that this renewed application for judicial review, following refusal by Mitting J, raises questions of considerable importance for juveniles when they are kept at police stations prior to being brought before the criminal courts in this country.
The claimant, when aged 16, was detained in police cells before being produced in the Youth Court. This, it is submitted, is a common phenomenon, in that research by the Howard League for Penal Reform suggests that in all likelihood significantly in excess of 40,000 children were held in police custody overnight during 2010 – 2011.
This application concerns four periods when the claimant was detained at a police station in the wake of a spate of offending on his part that is summarised below at [6]. The principal relief sought is a series of declarations concerning aspects of the legality of the claimant's detention, although there are ancillary applications for damages, disclosure and costs.
Timeliness
These proceedings were issued on 1 April 2014, more than three months after the first decision that is challenged. However, given the potential importance of this application for the claimant and other individuals under the age of 17, together with certain delays as regards, first, the grant of public funding and, second, the provision of substantive responses to the pre-action correspondence on the part of the first and second defendants, I would be minded to permit the claimant to argue the entirety of the application, albeit one element is outside the three months' time limit, in order to address all of the various issues raised by this application on their merits.
The Facts
The claimant turned 17 on 18 February 2014. He ordinarily lived with his mother and his siblings in Longbridge, Birmingham.
During 2012 he was convicted of attempted theft, battery, attempted robbery, burglary with intent to steal, aggravated burglary (committed whilst on bail), destruction of property (valued at less than £5000), failure to comply with the requirements of a Youth Rehabilitation Order, battery and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. A number of these offences were dealt with by non-custodial disposals. On 3 October 2013 the claimant was sentenced to a detention and training order (" DTO") for 22 months. As a part of this sentence, the court resentenced the claimant following the breaches of the community orders he had received for the 2012 offences.
The claimant was released from the custodial element of the DTO on 2 September 2013 when he became the subject of an Intensive Surveillance and Supervision Programme (" ISSP"), which he breached between 18 and 21 November 2013 by violating his electronically monitored curfew and by failing to attend appointments. His DTO licence supervision was due to last until 2 August 2014.
The four relevant periods of detention in police custody are set out below.
First Period of Detention
On 10 December 2012 at about 3.15 am a motorcar was stolen following a burglary of the owner's house during which the ignition key was taken. There was a short chase by the police and the vehicle was abandoned after it crashed into some parked motorcars. The claimant was arrested at 4.53 am having been observed running from the scene of the collision and he was discovered shortly afterwards hiding in a garden. He was taken to Bourneville Lane Police Station in Birmingham.
There appears to be no dedicated youth area at Bourneville Lane Police Station. The claimant was held by himself in an adult police cell, having arrived at about 5.00 am on 10 December 2013. Following an interview, at 8.20 pm on the same day he was charged with burglary and aggravated vehicle taking. There is a note by the custody sergeant in the custody record at 8.25 pm:
[there are] "… reasonable grounds for believing that the detention of the person arrested is necessary to prevent them causing physical injury to any other person".
and at 8.33 pm:
" I have spoken to Robyn Ills at EDT on (phone number given) they are enquiring now into the availability of secure accommodation which in this instance is required adequately to protect the public from serious harm".
At 8.45 pm the following was added:
"Mr Halpine has called in from EDT. They have no secure beds available for the PIC therefore he will remain in custody till the morning to go to court".
At 8.49 pm the custody sergeant noted:
"Manual print: juvenile detention form (JUR010): Certificate of juvenile detention required".
The custody sergeant had decided, therefore, that it was necessary to detain the claimant to prevent him from causing physical injury to others and/or to protect the public from serious harm, no doubt given the circumstances of the offence for which he had been arrested. He was refused bail and – given the lack of secure accommodation – he was not released from the police station to the local authority. He was held alone in an adult cell and there is no evidence that he associated with any adult who had been charged with an offence. He left the police station at 09.13 am on 11 December 2013 in order to be taken to court.
At the youth court, the District Judge accepted jurisdiction. The claimant and his co-accused denied the charges. A trial date was fixed. Bail was refused and the claimant was remanded to the local authority with conditions. An undated " Certificate of Juvenile Detention" has been disclosed – albeit this was seemingly not provided at the Youth Court on 11 December 2013 – in which it was set out that it was " feared" that the claimant "will commit further offences on bail" and that his detention was necessary " to protect others from harm".
On 18 December 2013 the claimant appeared at the Youth Court and pleaded guilty to failing to comply with his ISSP between 18 and 21 November 2013. He was remanded on conditional bail and was made the subject of a tagging order.
He later absconded from the children's home where he was placed.
Second Period of Detention
The claimant was arrested by the police at about 3.50 am on 7 January 2014 at his mother's house following his failure to comply with the conditions of his bail: he had removed the tag from his leg and he had not been living at the address specified by the court. He arrived at the police station at about 4.14 am. He was held in an adult cell because no juvenile room was available. He was taken to court at 9.02 am on 8 January 2014 and he was released back to the local authority. In all, he had been at the police station for less than 5 hours. He spent a significant part of the time sleeping and there is no evidence that he associated with any adult who had been charged with an offence.
He absconded for a second time from the children's home and he failed to attend court on the interim remand date: 15 January 2014.
Third Period of Detention
The claimant was arrested once more on 21 January 2014, again at his mother's home. He was taken to the police station, arriving at about 4.30 pm. He was detained pursuant to section 7 Bail Act 1976. He was held overnight in a juvenile room and he was produced at court on the following morning, 22 January 2014, leaving the police station at 8.45 am. His application for bail was refused and he was remanded to the local authority.
Thereafter, the claimant once again absconded.
Fourth Period of Detention
The claimant was arrested on 30 January 2014 at 10.45 am for failure to reside at the address that had been specified. He arrived at the police station at approximately 11.11 am. He was held in a juvenile cell. He left the police station at 2.12 pm when he was taken to the Magistrates' Court, whereon he was released on bail. He was held for just under 3 hours (during the day).
The Legislative and other Relevant Provisions
Section 31 Children and Young Persons Act 1933 provides:
Separation of children and young persons from adults in police stations, courts, &c.
Arrangements shall be made for preventing a child or young person while detained in a police station, or while being conveyed to or from any criminal court, or while awaiting before or after attendance in any criminal court, from associating with an adult (not being a relative) who is charged with any offence other than an offence with which the child or young person is jointly charged, and for ensuring that a girl (being a child or young person) shall while so detained, being conveyed, or waiting, be under the care of a woman.
Section 7 of the Bail Act 1976 provides:
Liability to arrest for absconding or breaking conditions of bail.
(1) If a person who has been released on bail in criminal proceedings and is under a duty to surrender into the custody of a court fails to surrender to custody at the time appointed for him to do...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rochaun Archer v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
...EWCA Civ 221; [2006] Q.B. 650 at [41] to [43]; R(BG) v Chief Constable of West Midlands Constabulary and Birmingham City Council [2014] EWHC 4374 (Admin) (“ BG”) at 65 Where a custody officer is not satisfied with the proposed arrangements of the local authority for the secure detention o......
-
GD and BD (Children, by their Children's Guardian) and Another v FD and Another West Yorkshire Police Ian Shiels (Interveners)
...as this provision applies to co-working between the local authority and the police, it was described in R. (on the application of BG) v Chief Constable of the West Midlands [2014] EWHC 4374 (Admin) (Fulford LJ, Nicol J) in this way (at [51]): "The fundamental obligation to safeguard and pro......