R "W" (A Minor) v Leeds Crown Court Crown Prosecution Service and Another (Interested Parties)

THE PRESIDENT: As will be apparent to their authors, this judgment relies heavily, and with gratitude, on the skeleton arguments of counsel before the court, for which I am very grateful.

Youth courts are a specialist subset of magistrates' courts and a court of summary jurisdiction constituted in accordance with section 45 of the Children and Young Person's Act 1933 as amended. They sit for the purpose of hearing any charge against a child or a young person or for the purpose of exercising any other jurisdiction conferred on youth courts by or under any Act. They have power to give detention and training orders of up to 24 months, as well as a range of sentences in the community. Youth courts are less formal than magistrates courts, are more open and engage more with the young person or child appearing in court and his or her family. Youth courts are essentially private places and members of the public are not allowed in. Victims of the crime, however, do have an opportunity to attend the hearings of the court if they want to, but they must make a request of the court if they wish to do so.

The claimant presently before the court was born on 14th February 1997 and is accordingly aged 14. He has no previous convictions, although he has received one reprimand and one warning. He is not a persistent offender within the meaning of section 100(2) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. He is charged with the burglary of a dwelling house on 11th March 2011 and with a connected offence of witness intimidation alleged to have been committed on the same day. He denies both these charges. On the burglary charge, but not the witness intimidation charge, he was charged with a co-accused, who was born in May of 1991 and is accordingly aged 20. For that reason the hearings in the magistrates' court took place in the adult court and not in the youth court.

On 18th May 2011 the claimant and the 20 year old appeared before the magistrates' court for mode of trial to be dealt with. The 20 year old indicated no plea and the magistrates declined jurisdiction in his case. They sought an indication of plea from the claimant and not guilty pleas were indicated. The magistrates concluded that it was in the interests of justice for the claimant to be committed alongside the adult under section 24(1)(b) of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 and they accordingly committed both defendants to the Crown Court under section 6(2) of the 1980 Act.

A plea and case management hearing in the Crown Court took place before His Honour Judge Grant on 15th June 2011. At that hearing the adult pleaded guilty and his case was therefore adjourned for sentence. The claimant pleaded not guilty and it was submitted on his behalf that since the link with the adult had been broken, his case should be remitted to the youth court for trial. However, the judge concluded that he had no power so to order. The plea and case management hearing continued and a trial date in the Crown Court was fixed for 17th August 2011.

In due course, in a separate but similar case concerning a person called "G" and an adult who pleaded guilty, a different judge at the Crown Court at Leeds concluded that he did have power under section 8(2) of the 2000 Act to remit the case to the youth court for trial, although the youth court in due course refused to accept the case.

Given these different rulings in two different Crown Courts and the uncertainty in the case of G, the prosecution took what I consider to have been the entirely sensible step of having both cases listed before the Recorder of Leeds to enable clarification to be sought and, if appropriate, directions to be given.

The Recorder of Leeds heard argument on 18th July 2011 and on the following day he delivered a reasoned judgment. He expressed himself very sympathetic to the arguments advanced on behalf of each of the youth defendants and stated that it would be much better if they were dealt with in the youth court. However, he concluded that he had no power to remit the cases for trial in the youth court. He recognised that he might be wrong about this and indicated an understanding that the Divisional Court might be willing to hear argument about this matter very quickly. The judicial review claim form and application for urgent consideration were lodged on 21st July and my Lord, Langstaff J, gave permission to apply for judicial review on the same day.

The expedited judicial review proceedings have been heard before this court today, 28th July, a mere nine days after the Recorder delivered his reasons, and all those concerned, court staff, lawyers and judges alike, are to be commended for the efficiency and co-operation that has enabled this to happen. It is a signal example of the operation of the Administrative Court acting with efficiency and expedition out of London.

The claimant challenges the decision of the Recorder of Leeds that he had no power to remit the case to the youth court for trial. The challenge does not, it is submitted, relate to the quality of the decision which the Crown Court had an established jurisdiction to make; rather, the challenge relate to the jurisdiction of the Crown Court itself. In short, the claimant contends that the Recorder of Leeds wrongly concluded that he had no power to make an order that he would otherwise have wished to make; that is, it is contended that his decision was a jurisdictionally flawed act. The decision under challenge is therefore outside the scope of the Crown Court's jurisdiction in matters relating to trial on indictment, and judicial review is, it is submitted, not excluded.

Both parties and the court are agreed that this is a competent judicial review application which is not precluded by section 29(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 in that it is not, and in my view is plainly not, a matter relating to trial on indictment. It is not necessary to elaborate on this, but we have helpfully been referred to a number of cases, including R v Maidstone Crown Court, ex parte Harrow London Borough Council [2000] QB 719, R (Kenneally) v The Crown Court at Snaresbrook [2002] QB 1169, and R (on the application of "O") v Central Criminal Court [2006] EWHC 256 Admin. We have also considered, but it is not necessary to elaborate on, a number of cases, including in Re Smalley [1985] AC 622, in Re Sampson [1987] 1 WLR 194, in Re Ashton [1994] 1 AC 96, and R v Manchester Crown Court, ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions [1993] 1 WLR 1524, and we have also considered other cases looked at in Archbold chapter 7 section 2. As I say, it is not necessary to elaborate on that because it is agreed, and I agree, that this is a competent judicial review application.

The basic principle is that a youth court must hear a charge against a child or young person. That is provided for by section 46 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. There are, however, exceptions, and that includes by section 46(1)(a) that a charge made jointly against a child or young person and a person who has attained the age of 18 years shall be heard by a magistrates' court other than a youth court. So it is that the problem in this case arises because the child or young person, the claimant, was jointly charged in the magistrates' court with an adult.

Section 29 of the 1980 Magistrates' Court Act deals with the situation in which a child or young person appears before a magistrates' court, that is an adult court, under section 46(1)(a) of the 1933 Act where he is jointly charged with an adult, but on the court proceeding to summary trial the adult pleads guilty. In short, the magistrates' court is expressly empowered to remit the accused to a youth court for trial. That is expressed in these relevant parts of section 29 of the 1980 Act:

"(1) Where -

(a) a person under the age of 18 years ('the juvenile') appears or is brought before a magistrates' court other than a youth court on an information jointly charging him and one or more other persons with an offence; and

(b) that other person, or any of those other persons has attained that age,

subsection (2) below shall have effect notwithstanding proviso (a) in section 46(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933…

(2) If -

(a) the court proceeds to the summary trial of the information in the case of both or all of the accused, and the older accused or each of the elder accused pleads guilty; or…

then, if in either situation the juvenile pleads not guilty, the court may before any evidence is called in his case remit him for trial to a youth court acting for the same place as the remitting court or for the place where he habitually resides.

(3) A person remitted to a youth court under subsection (2) above shall be brought before and tried by a youth court accordingly.

(4) Where a person is so remitted to a youth court -

(a) he shall have no right of appeal against the order of remission."

It is not necessary to read any more of that section.

It is an important consideration in the present claim that it is that section of the ...