R v Central Criminal Court, ex parte Guney
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Goff of Chieveley,Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle,Lord Slynn of Hadley,Lord Steyn,Lord Hoffmann |
| Judgment Date | 09 May 1996 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1996] UKHL J0509-1 |
| Date | 09 May 1996 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1996] UKHL J0509-1
House of Lords
Lord Goff of Chieveley
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle
Lord Slynn of Hadley
Lord Steyn
Lord Hoffmann
OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE
My Lords,
I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech prepared by my noble and learned friend, Lord Steyn. For the reasons he gives I too would dismiss this appeal.
My Lords,
I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend, Lord Steyn. For the reasons he gives I too would dismiss this appeal.
My Lords,
For the reasons given in the speech prepared by my noble and learned friend, Lord Steyn, I too would dismiss this appeal.
My Lords,
My Lords, on this appeal the general question of law arises whether a defendant on bail, who is under a duty to surrender to the custody of the court but neglects to do so before arraignment, does so by operation of law upon his formal arraignment.
On 16 December 1990 Mr. Asil Nadir was charged with a number of offences of theft and false accounting. On 17 December 1990 the Bow Street Magistrates' Court remanded Mr. Nadir on bail. The conditions of his bail included provisions that Mr. Nadir had to deposit £2m.; that he had to provide five sureties in the sum of £1.5m.; and that he had to live and sleep at a London address. Mr. Nadir was admitted to bail. The grant of bail was continuous so long as the proceedings remained in the magistrates court, and extended until Mr. Nadir first surrendered to the custody of the Crown Court.
On 28 January 1991 Mr. Ramadan Guney signed a form of recognisance for sureties in criminal cases. It bore the heading of the Bow Street Magistrates' Court. It described Mr. Nadir as the accused, and Mr. Guney as the surety. The form read as follows:
"I acknowledge my obligation to pay the court the sum specified opposite my signature if the accused fails to surrender to the custody of the above-named court [Bow Street Magistrates' Court] on 23 April 1991 at 2 p.m.; and custody at every time and place to which during the course of the proceedings the hearing may from time to time be adjourned; and custody of the Crown Court on such day and at such time and place as may be notified to the accused by the appropriate officer of that court."
Mr. Guney signed the form opposite the figure of £lm. By his recognisance Mr. Guney undertook the obligation to ensure that Mr. Nadir surrendered to the custody of the court when required to do so, If Mr. Nadir did so. Mr. Guney ceased to be bound by his recognisance.
On 25 October 1991, after Mr. Nadir had been charged with further offences, Bow Street Magistrates' Court wrote to Mr. Guney to inquire as to his willingness to continue to act as surety. On 1 November 1991 Mr. Guney confirmed his willingness to continue as surety.
In February 1992 the prosecution decided to use the special procedures introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 1987 for the management of serious fraud cases. On 7 February 1992 the charges against Mr. Nadir were transferred to the Central Criminal Court. Under the Act of 1987 there was no need for committal proceedings. The proceedings against Mr. Nadir were assigned to Tucker J. On 28 February 1992, and at the Central Criminal Court, Tucker J. held a preliminary hearing. Mr. Nadir and his advisers were present. The judge fixed 22 June 1992 as the date of the first "preparatory hearing" under the provisions of section 7 of the Act of 1987. It was common ground on the appeal to your Lordships' House that Mr. Nadir was required to surrender to the custody of the court on 22 June 1992.
On 22 June 1992 the preparatory hearing was held at Chichester Rents. That building has no cells. It also has no custody area set aside for persons surrendering to bail to report to an official or a particular office. The courtroom has no dock. Mr. Nadir, accompanied by his advisers, was present throughout the preparatory hearing. After some preliminary exchanges the judge said that the preparatory hearing would start. He asked Mr. Nadir to stand up. The arraignment commenced. The counts in the indictment were then put to Mr. Nadir. He pleaded not guilty to them. At no stage during the preparatory hearing was any reference made to Mr. Nadir's bail. The fact that Mr. Guney was not present to agree to any extension of his recognisance caused counsel for the prosecution and counsel for Mr. Nadir to agree that it was not necessary for Mr. Nadir to surrender to the custody of the court on that occasion. Both counsel bona fide believed that their agreement effectively kept Mr. Guney's recognisance in force. Tucker J. was not informed of this arrangement.
Subsequent events do not affect the outcome of the appeal and can be summarised briefly. Further preparatory hearings were held on 7 September and 14 to 17 December 1992. On the latter occasion Mr. Nadir sought, and was refused, a variation of his bail conditions in order to enable him to visit Northern Cyprus. At the end of April 1993 Mr. Guney took steps to withdraw his recognisance, but he abandoned his application before it was considered by the court. On 4 May 1993 Mr. Nadir fled the country. He went to Northern Cyprus. He has been a fugitive from justice ever since.
Mr. Guney was called upon to show cause why he should not forfeit £lm. Tucker J. ruled that in view of the agreement between counsel that Mr. Nadir should not surrender to his bail on 22 June he must be regarded as not having surrendered to bail on that occasion. Tucker J. also added, for what it was worth, that he never regarded Mr. Nadir as having surrendered to his custody. The judge ordered that Mr. Guney should forfeit £650,000 and that in default of payment within six months Mr. Guney should serve two years' imprisonment. Mr. Guney applied for judicial review. The principal issue was whether by virtue of his arraignment Mr. Nadir had surrendered to custody. Giving the judgment of the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division Ralph Gibson L.J. ruled that it was possible in law for an arraignment to take place without surrender of the defendant to the custody of the court, and he ruled that that is what happened in this case: Regina v. Central Criminal Court, Ex parte Guney [1994] 1 W.L.R. 438, 447c – 448F. The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Mr. Guney appealed. In the Court of Appeal there was a difference of opinion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hurstwood Developments Ltd v Motor and General & Andersley & Company Insurance Services Ltd
...decisions. 16 It is clear that "damage" in that sub-section is not to be equated with "damages": see Birse Construction Limited v Haiste [1996] 2 WLR 675, at 682C. That can readily be seen from the use of the word "damages" in section 2(3) of the 1978 Act, a deliberately different expressio......
-
Choudhry v Birmingham Crown Court
...33 In assessing whether the sureties continued in force, as it seems to me the decisions in R v Central Criminal Court ex parte Guney [1996] AC 616 and Jodka are clearly distinguishable from the present situation. It is clear from those decisions that the jurisdiction of the Magistrates to ......
-
R v Scott Lennon Evans
...v Richards (1989) 88 Cr App R 97 or [1988] QB 701. 2 For anybody reading the transcript who wishes to know the reference to the decision in Guney, it is [1996] AC 616. 3 We will therefore extend time for the appeal against conviction to be launched. 4 Mr Sharma and Mr Hallowes will discus......
-
R v Dimond
...arrangements would continue. 8 It now is plain from the decision of the House of Lords in R v Central Criminal Court, ex parte Guney [1996] AC 616, [1996] 2 Cr App R 352, that counsel, the judge, the defendant Mr Nadir, and Mr Guney were all labouring under a misapprehension as to the legal......
-
Legal status and positive practice in Community Order enforcement
...with paragraph (9)(1) of sched-ule 8 of the present statute. Cases R v Devine [1956]1.W.L.R. 236.R v Central Criminal Court ex p Guney [1996] A.C.616 HLR v Leyland Magistrates ex. P Hawthorne [1979] W.L.R.28 R v Willesden Justices ex p Clemmings [1998] 87 Cr App R 280 West Yorkshire Probati......