R Iqbal v The Crown Court at Canterbury
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Fulford,Mrs Justice Carr DBE |
| Judgment Date | 18 February 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] EWHC 452 (Admin) |
| Date | 18 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. CO/4000/2019 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
and
[2020] EWHC 452 (Admin)
Lord Justice Fulford
Mrs Justice Carr DBE
No. CO/4000/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Ms K. Lumsdon QC (instructed by Grey & Co) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
THE RESPONDENT did not appear and was not represented.
Ms V. Ailes (instructed by the CPS) appeared on behalf of the Interested Party.
Introduction
This judicial review claim arises out of the refusal of bail to the Claimant pending his trial at Canterbury Crown Court for Class A drug importation. Following his arrest, the Claimant had been “released under investigation” by the police pursuant to s.30A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (as amended by the Policing and Crime Act 2017) for some two years. He was then charged by postal requisition and attended the Magistrates' Court where he was remanded in custody. The Claimant challenged that remand on 29 September 2019 before HHJ Brown (“the Judge”), who maintained the decision to remand the Claimant in custody (“the bail decision”). The Claimant contends that the bail decision was irrational. The Director of Public Prosecutions (“the DPP”) appears as an interested party.
A reporting restriction was imposed pursuant to s. 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 at the outset of this hearing. Publication of any aspect of this hearing and this judgment will be postponed until the conclusion of the (imminent) criminal proceedings. This restriction is necessary to avoid a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in those proceedings.
I express my gratitude at the outset for the able representations on both sides: from Ms Lumsdon QC for the Claimant, and from Ms Ailes for the DPP.
The facts
The Claimant is 33 years of age and married with two children, aged six and fourteen, with the family home in Liverpool. He is of previous good character.
He was stopped on 11 September 2017 in a UK control zone at Calais as the sole driver and occupant of a Subaru vehicle. He told Border Force officers that he had been out of the country for a day and a half, having travelled out the day before. He said that he had gone to Nürburgring, a motor sports complex in Germany, with friends who were already there. It was his first time visiting Nürburgring and out of the UK. He stated that he had stayed in a B&B but had no receipts. He said his friends had booked everything. He had owned the vehicle for three weeks, having purchased it specifically for this trip. He was returning home to Liverpool. He said that he traded cars for work from home. He said that he was going to keep this car. He just had some tools in the boot of the car in case of breakdown.
The vehicle was then searched. 14 kilograms of cocaine, with a street value of approximately £1,150,000, were found to have been concealed in the external compartments of the car bumpers. The Claimant was arrested. He said that he had not thought that there was anything in the vehicle and had no knowledge of the drugs. He was then formally interviewed under caution the next day and gave a prepared statement. He said that he had no idea how the drugs came to be in the vehicle, which he had bought about three weeks ago from a private seller in Manchester. When he purchased it there were a couple of boxes in the boot which he did not check through. He went to Germany to watch DTH racing with friends. The vehicle was not within his sight the whole time.
As indicated, the Claimant was then “released under investigation” without bail. He attended for voluntary interview on 16 April 2019, when the police put to him the product of some of their investigations — suggesting that he had not, in fact, travelled to Germany as he had alleged, for example. The Claimant made no comment, save to give responses to questions about his passport which had, by then, been cancelled.
On 16 August 2019, he received a postal requisition at his home informing him that he was charged with an offence of drug importation and requiring him to attend Folkestone Magistrates' Court on 18 September 2019 to answer the charge.
The Claimant duly attended on 18 September 2019. The CPS on that occasion objected to bail and the Claimant was remanded in custody by DJ Barron. The matter was then sent to the Crown Court for a plea and directions hearing on 20 September 2019. A “judge in chambers” application was then made on that day before the Judge. A surety of £15,000 was offered on behalf of the Claimant.
A detailed hearing took place, with counsel for both sides appearing before the Judge. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Judge gave a ruling in which she refused bail, a transcript of which is available. The Judge set out the nature of the charge facing the Claimant and a summary of the prosecution evidence updated, as it had been, for the Judge and as presented to her. She stated that the case against the Claimant was “extremely strong” and “extremely serious”. His account was “implausible”. Were the Claimant to be convicted, he would receive a very substantial sentence. She stated in terms that she took into account the fact that the Claimant was of good character with family in Liverpool, and went on:
“… [The Claimant] is a man who… quite inexplicably in many ways, has been released under investigation for many months before he was re-interviewed, where he gave no comment and was subsequently charged. It's right to say that he has attended… the voluntary interview and… he appears at the magistrate's court. But I am quite satisfied, as was the District Judge, that there was a very real and substantial risk of this man failing to surrender if I were to grant him bail, and that risk is not met by any of the proposed conditions, even if I add to it not applying for any travel documentation. So this application for bail is refused.”
The procedural position
The Claimant lodged an urgent application for judicial review on 11 October 2019. On 14 October 2019, permission to apply for judicial review was refused on the papers but, following an oral renewal hearing on 10 December 2019, permission was granted.
A PTPH in the criminal proceedings took place on 21 October 2019 at which the Claimant entered a not guilty plea. His trial is now fixed to take place on 24 February 2020, that is to say next Monday.
It is common ground that this Court has jurisdiction, since the bail decision does not fall within the exclusion under s.29(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 in respect of “matters relating to trial on indictment”.
PACE 1984 and the Bail Act 1978
By s.30A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as amended by the Policing and Crime Act 2017, the criterion for release under investigation is that the police do not consider it “necessary and proportionate” to release on bail “… in all the circumstances, (having regard in particular to any conditions of bail which would be imposed)…
Section 4 of the Bail Act 1978 provides: “A person to whom this section applies shall be granted bail except as provided in Schedule 1 to this Act.” Paragraph 2 of Part I of Schedule 1 to the Act (“Schedule 1”) provides materially as follows:
“1. The defendant need not be granted bail if the court is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that the defendant, if released on bail (whether subject to conditions or not) would—
(a) fail to surrender to custody…”
Paragraph 9 of Part I of Schedule 1 provides:
“In taking the decisions required by paragraph 2(1)… the court shall have regard to such of the following considerations as appear to it to be relevant, that is to say—
(a) the nature and seriousness of the offence or default (and the probable method of dealing with the defendant for it),
(b) the character, antecedents, associations and community ties of the defendant,
(c) the defendant's record as respects the fulfilment of his obligations under previous grants of bail in criminal proceedings,
(d) except in the case of a defendant whose case is adjourned for inquiries or a report, the strength of the evidence of his having committed the offence or having defaulted,
(e) if the court is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that the defendant, if released on bail (whether subject to conditions or not), would commit an offence while on bail, the risk that the defendant may do so by engaging in conduct that would, or would be likely to, cause physical or mental injury to any person other than the defendant as well as to any others which appear to be relevant.”
S.5(3) of the Bail Act 1976 provides:
“Where a magistrates' court or the Crown Court—
(a) withholds bail in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The King (on the application of Shafaquat Afzal Hussain) v Crown Court at Leeds
...or in this case a refusal of variation of bail conditions, has authoritatively been identified in R (Iqbal) v Canterbury Crown Court [2020] EWHC 452 (Admin) (2020) 2 Cr App R 1 at §§28–38. It is not necessary for me to quote from those passages or mention the various authorities there refe......