R (on the Application of C) v Sevenoaks Youth Court
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 November 2009 |
| Date | 03 November 2009 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
Court and Reference: Administrative Court, CO/10290/2009
Sullivan LJ, Openshaw J
J Luckhurst for C; J Coppel for the Legal Services Commission; J Dick for the CPS; L Hoggett-Jones for the co-defendant in the criminal trial.
Whether an intermediary could be appointed for a juvenile defendant with mental health difficulties; the regime for paying such an intermediary; whether a prosecution was fair in light of the defendant's difficulties.
C, a 12-year-old boy, was due to stand trial in the Youth Court on charges of assault with intent to rob and theft. He had complex mental health issues, including hyperactivity, which was not adequately controlled by medication, low comprehension suggestive of a learning disability, a personality disorder and possibly Asperger's Syndrome. As a result, he required an intermediary to allow him properly to understand the evidence, give instructions, prepare for and follow the trial, and if necessary to give evidence on his own behalf; there was no contention that he was unfit to stand trial. The Youth Court authorised the appointment of an intermediary, but then revoked that decision, finding that it had no power to appoint an intermediary. The revocation was challenged in judicial review proceedings; also challenged was the refusal of the Legal Services Commission to fund an intermediary and the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service to continue the case against C despite his difficulties.
Openshaw J :
1. This is an application for permission to apply for judicial review. The claimant, C, who must not been named or identified, is a 12-year-old boy who is due to face trial at Sevenoaks Youth Court over 3 days, starting on 17 December, upon charges of assault with intent to rob and theft. There is evidence that the claimant has complex mental health issues. It is said on his behalf that he requires an intermediary so that he can properly understand the evidence, give instructions, prepare for and follow the trial, and if necessary to give evidence on his own behalf. The claimant now seeks permission to challenge, first, the decision of the Sevenoaks Youth Court to revoke an earlier decision purporting to authorise the appointment of an intermediary; second, to challenge the decision of the Legal Services Commission by which they refused funding for an intermediary; and third, to challenge the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service to continue the case against him given his continuing psychological difficulties.
2. The alleged offences took place on the evening of 11 October last year. A 13-year-old boy was returning home in uniform from a meeting of the Army Cadet Force when he was approached by C and a 15-year-old youth, P. He was roughly held against a wall, they demanded his mobile telephone; the cadet told them, truthfully it seems, that he did not have his mobile with him, he was then pushed to the ground and repeatedly punched and kicked. One of his assailants ran off with the cadet's torch, hence the charge of theft. C and P were identified nearby and arrested.
3. The following day C was interviewed under caution at Tonbridge Police Station with an appropriate adult being present but without legal representation. He admitted speaking to the cadet but claimed that he only asked him the time. He said that he did not take part in any assault upon the cadet, neither did he see any assault committed upon him by others. P, C's co-defendant has appeared before us as an interested party, but his interests are confined to ensuring that the trial date is kept. We are very anxious that nothing which we do should imperil that trial date.
4. On 19 February 2009, at his first appearance at court, C was seen by the duty solicitor who immediately realised that he had serious mental health issues. His solicitors then set about obtaining medical evidence upon his condition. A week later, at the next hearing on 26 February, C formally entered pleas of not guilty to the charges.
5. Dr Marriot is a chartered clinical psychologist. She reported on 24 April. She was of the opinion that C had long standing emotional and behavioural disorders. As C was waiting to see Dr Marriot his behaviour was unmanageable; he was running about and shouting aggressively. At the meeting he presented as being severely overactive with extremely poor concentration and low tolerance. Although his lack of concentration was such that she could not complete a formal assessment of intellectual functioning, such tests as she could do were suggestive of a learning disability, possibly coming within the range of "exceptionally low". That is to say within the bottom second percentile. His comprehension was considerably below his chronological age. She was able to confirm the long standing diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, or "ADHD", which was not adequately controlled by the medication currently prescribed. He also suffered from a personality disorder known as Oppositional Defiance Disorder. She thought that he also presented with many of the symptoms of Asperger's Syndrome, for example his obsessive conduct and upset at changes to routines; the inability to recognise or understand the emotional state of others; and an inability to understand any non-verbal communication, which resulted in what she called a "huge deficit in social learning".
6. However, notwithstanding these disabilities, she thought that he did understand what he was charged with, and he also understood the nature of his plea. She thought that he would be able to give a relatively coherent and consistent account of the events surrounding the alleged offence. She had no doubt that he could tell right from wrong, she thought that he was fit to plead and fit to be tried. But she did not think that he would be able to concentrate during the trial, nor to listen to the evidence, nor instruct his solicitor about what parts of the evidence he accepted and what parts he disagreed with. She thought that he may be able to respond to sympathetic questioning but would find it difficult to cope with cross-examination and there was a risk that he would respond impulsively and inappropriately. However, she thought that he would be able to cope with the trial process provided he had regular breaks and if everyone used simple language. She was specifically asked if there were any steps that the court could take to enable C more effectively to participate in his trial, it was in answer to this question that Dr Marriot reported that he might be assisted in following the proceedings if the court appointed an intermediary who could speak to C throughout the trial, explaining to him those parts of the evidence and the proceedings which he did not understand, making sure that his case was properly understood by his solicitor and put to the court, both by way of cross-examining other witnesses and by giving evidence himself, and by calling such evidence as the interests of justice might require.
7. Dr Marriot was concerned that C's ADHD was not being properly controlled and advised that he was seen by a consultant forensic neuro-psychiatrist. So it was that Dr Staufenberg was instructed. Although he did not report until 7 July, it is convenient to summarise his findings here. His long report is thorough and meticulous, no one has sought to question his findings. He confirms the diagnosis of Autistic Spectrum Disorder with Asperger's Syndrome specific symptoms, with resultant Hyperkinetic Neuro Developmental Syndrome, an expression he preferred to ADHD. Dr Staufenberg helpfully paid particular attention to the difficulties which C's condition would present to the trial process. He thought that C interacted with his mother and with his solicitor whom he described as perceptive, concerned and kind. However, C had an impaired capacity to assimilate information. He had problems in forming coherent conclusions from the information which he had received, he had particular problems with abstract ideas. This is a recognised symptom of the so-called low central coherence which results in a markedly impaired capacity to understand or to present events or ideas in a logical...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jordan Dixon v R
...them aware of any facts which should be put forward in his defence." 87 This approach has been followed by our Divisional Court in C v Sevenoaks Youth Court [2009] EWHC 3088 (Admin). 88 In this case, privilege having been waived, the court has been made aware of the actions of the Appellant......
-
Re K and H (Children)
...to translation, so should therefore be funded by the court: see Re X, para 37 and C v Sevenoaks Youth Court [2009] EWHC 3088 (Admin), [2010] 1 All ER 735, paras 26–27." 40 I agree with this. Nor do I see how the fact that HMCTS funds the preparation of court bundles from time to time sheds......
-
R v Billy Nathan Midmore
...the court to appoint an intermediary for a defendant is helpfully set out in the judgment of Openshaw J in R (C) v Sevenoaks Youth Court[2009] MHLR 329 at paras 12–18, where he concluded: “… there is nothing in the Waltham Justices case, whether it be rightly or wrongly decided, which preve......
-
Practice Direction (Costs in Criminal Proceedings) 2015
... ... IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION) Royal Courts of Justice Strand, ... 16 Schedule 5 Form of application for a Costs Order ... 17 PART 1: GENERAL ... accused's lack of English or an intermediary under section 29 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, or of an oral report by a medical ... ...
-
Theorising Children's Rights in Youth Justice: The Significance of Autonomy and Foundational Rights
...the application of K) vParole Board [2006] EWHC 2413 (Admin); [2006] All ER (D) 75R;R (on the application of C) vSevenoaks Youth Court [2010] 1 All ER 735; and R (on the applicationof HC) (a child, by his litigation friend CC) vThe Secretary of State for the Home Department; TheCommissioner......