R (on the application of H) v Guildford Magistrates' Court
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE SILBER |
| Judgment Date | 03 March 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] EWHC 506 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/7340/2007 |
| Date | 03 March 2008 |
[2008] EWHC 506 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Silber
CO/7340/2007
Mr Lionel Blackmann (of Lionel Blackmann Solicitors, Surrey KT19 8AT) appeared on behalf of The Appellant
The Respondents were unrepresented
Monday 3 March 2008
H appeals with the leave of Wyn Williams J to quash a decision of the Guildford Youth Court made on 26 February 2007 to refuse to stay the prosecution of the claimant on the grounds that it was an abuse of process. The thrust of the claimant's case is first that a representative on behalf of the prosecution had promised not to prosecute the claimant, and second, that they had resiled from that promise. In consequence it is said that the justices ought to have stayed the prosecutions as an abuse but that they failed to do so.
An e-mail has been received from the Divisional Crown Prosecutor which shows that the Crown Prosecution Service do not contest the application to quash the conviction. The Youth Court have taken no part in these proceedings.
The facts which give rise to this application are that on 26 July 2006 the claimant, who was then 15 years of age, was alleged to have kicked a fellow school pupil in the jaw causing a fracture.
The claimant, who had no previous convictions, was interviewed by the police on 8 August 2006 in the presence of an appropriate adult and a representative of his solicitors, Mr Lee Wainscoat.
Before the interview with the police it was intimated to Mr Wainscoat that it was possible that the claimant would receive a final warning as a way of resolving the matter. When he was interviewed the claimant admitted the offence, but he maintained that he had been bullied and that that was the reason why he had kicked the victim in the jaw.
In the interview the officer told the claimant that he would seek to have the matter resolved that day. The claimant was bailed to an intervention clinic on 30 September 2006 when it was indicated that the matter would be dealt with by way of a final warning.
On 31 August 2006 the claimant's solicitors were contacted by the police who informed them that the offence might not be suitable for a final warning. Surprise was expressed that the claimant had been referred to the intervention clinic. The officer indicated that the matter had been referred to the Crown Prosecution Service for advice on charging.
The claimant duly attended Guildford Police Station on 30 September 2006 when he was further bailed to 4 November 2006. On that date the claimant was formally charged with an offence of unlawfully inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the Offences against the Persons Act 1861.
The claimant appeared before the Guildford Youth Court on 16 November when the justices accepted jurisdiction. A not guilty plea was entered. At the pre-trial hearing on 14 December 2006 the trial was fixed for a three day period commencing 26 February 2007. It had been indicated that an abuse of process argument would be made on the first day of the trial. Indeed on the first day of the trial it was contended on behalf of the claimant that the decision to prosecute him amounted to an abuse of process as he had a legitimate expectation as a consequence of what had been said to him at the police station at the time of the interview that the matter would be dealt with by way of a final warning.
After evidence had been given by both the claimant and the prosecution witnesses it was conceded by the prosecution that there had been a clear promise that the matter would be dealt with by way of a final warning to the claimant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Danny Mansfield v DPP
...public interest in officials of the state adhering to their promises. She referred in this connection to R(H) v Guildford Youth Court [2008] EWHC 506, a decision of Silber J sitting in the Administrative Court. Silber J held that the official promise was such an important consideration that......
-
Tsang's Application (Joseph)
...of no prosecution and detriment to the defendant in reliance on the representation. [15] H v The Guildford Youth Court [2008] EWHC 506 (Admin.) involved a police decision to prosecute after police had stated that there would be no prosecution. Before interview by the police, the applicant w......
-
Queen v Nigel James Brown & Gary Ryan Taylor (No. 2)
...“this most recent authoritative statement of the proposition” and adopted it. [21] Finally, I must refer to H v Guildford Youth Court 2008 EWHC 506 (Admin). As Weatherup J pointed out in Tsang this was a case where the defendant did act to his detriment by making admissions after an unequiv......
-
R v Ryan Thom
...there will be no proceedings. 18 Mr Starkey relies on the decision of Silber J in R v on the application of H v Guildford Youth Court [2008] EWHC 506 Admin. That was a case involving a 15 year old who was alleged to have kicked a fellow school pupil, causing a fractured jaw. The facts are b......
-
Raised Expectations, Flawed Discretion and Abuse of Process in Diversion and Provision of Accommodation
...possible and prosecution was a proper way to proceed.The Guildford Assault CaseR (on the application of H.) v Guildford Youth Court [2008] EWHC 506 (Admin) concerned a boy aged 15 with no prior record who allegedly kicked a fellow school pupil in the jaw, caus-ing a fracture. In police inte......