TI v Bromley Youth Court
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Dame Victoria Sharp, P. |
| Judgment Date | 14 May 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] EWHC 1204 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/26/2020,CO/26/2020 |
| Date | 14 May 2020 |
[2020] EWHC 1204 (Admin)
Dame Victoria Sharp
THE PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
and
Mr Justice William Davis
Case No: CO/26/2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Joanne Cecil (instructed by Just for Kids Law) for the Claimant
The Defendant and Interested Party did not attend
Hearing dates: 13 May 2020
Approved Judgment
At the hearing of this application for judicial review yesterday, we announced that we quashed the decision challenged by the claimant and that we would give our reasons later. These are our written reasons.
Introduction
The claimant (TI) is now 15, his date of birth being 3 April 2005. He is awaiting trial at Bromley Youth Court in respect of charges of theft and breach of a criminal behaviour order.
On 13 October 2019 a woman, Ms H, was walking along Peckham Road, Camberwell in South East London. A group of young males on bicycles rode up behind her. One of the group snatched the mobile telephone she had in her hand. The group rode away. Approximately five minutes later police officers saw a group of young males on bicycles in Peckham High Street. They recognised the claimant as one of the group. They also recognised a young male to whom we shall refer as DB as being part of the group. Under the terms of the criminal behaviour order to which the claimant was subject, he was prohibited from associating with DB in public.
The police officers were aware of the incident involving Ms H. They drove in the direction taken by the group of young males. Within a short period of time they saw the claimant on foot emerging from a nearby estate. They arrested him and took him to Walworth Police Station. At the police station it transpired that the claimant had a small quantity of cannabis in his possession.
The claimant was interviewed by the police. He was represented by a solicitor. His mother acted as an appropriate adult. He admitted possession of cannabis. He provided a prepared statement which read:
“My name is [TI] and in relation to this allegation I deny being involved in any robbery. I was not opposite the Sainsbury's on Peckham Road. In fact I was not on Peckham Road at all that evening. I do not know anything about a robbery. I was in Peckham Hill Street and did not go to that area. In relation to the breach I was not in contact with [DB]. We did not associate or speak to each other in public. He also lives in the same area so it is of course possible that we are in the same area by chance but there was no association. I was with a friend that I am allowed to associate with.”
On 14 October 2019 Ms H took part in a video identification parade. She identified the claimant as the person who had taken her mobile telephone.
On 15 October 2019 the claimant made his first appearance at Bromley Youth Court. He pleaded guilty to possession of cannabis and not guilty to the charges of theft and breach of a criminal behaviour order. The District Judge was provided with a Preparation for Effective Trial (PET) form. On the form the claimant's solicitor identified the disputed issues of fact, namely the claimant was not the company of DB, the police officers being mistaken in their recognition, and the claimant was not present at the time of the theft, the identification of him by Ms H being disputed. The solicitor also indicated that there was a psychological report which indicated that the claimant had learning difficulties and recommended the appointment of an intermediary for the effective participation of the claimant in the proceedings. The District Judge ordered any intermediary report to be served by 12 November 2019.
On 29 November 2019 the case was listed for a further case management hearing before District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) Hammond. She was not the judge who had conducted the first hearing. She had the psychological report to which reference had been made on the PET form. She also had a report from an intermediary. The District Judge set a trial date: 8 January 2020. The claimant through his solicitor had applied in writing for the appointment of an intermediary to support the claimant throughout the trial. After oral argument the District Judge refused the application.
The claimant now applies with permission granted by Mr Justice Supperstone for judicial review of the decision of the District Judge refusing to appoint an intermediary and for an order requiring the appointment of an intermediary. The trial as listed 8 January 2020 was vacated by an order of Mr Justice Pepperall following an application for interim relief. The proceedings in the Bromley Youth Court have been stayed until the outcome of these proceedings. Neither the court nor the Crown Prosecution Service as interested party has made any submissions.
The decision of District Judge (Magistrates' Court) Hammond
The District Judge gave her reasons for refusing to appoint an intermediary in a short ex tempore judgment delivered on 29 November 2019. No recording was made of the judgment. However, the District Judge provided a statement dated 4 January 2020 to assist this court in its consideration of the application for interim relief. It sets out the reasons for her decision as taken from the notes she made during the hearing and from her memory of the hearing.
The District Judge identified seven factors as relevant to her decision. First, she observed that the Youth Court is a specialist jurisdiction well-accustomed to dealing with vulnerable young people. She considered that the recommendations in relation to questioning of the claimant were familiar in that jurisdiction and were not unusual or technical in nature. Second, she referred to Rashid [2017] EWCA Crim 2 as authority for the proposition that the bar of the appointment of an intermediary is a high one. She said that the court could adapt its processes to allow the Claimant's participation in the proceedings. Third, she was able to make and did make directions to facilitate the recommendations of the intermediary. Fourth, a ground rules hearing on the morning of trial would ensure that the recommendations were followed. Fifth, the claimant had appeared in court on four previous occasions. In April 2019 he had been convicted after a trial. He had given evidence. He had not been assisted by an intermediary. There had been no appeal against the safety of that conviction. Sixth, the prepared statement provided to the police during the interview demonstrated that he had sufficient understanding of the issues and an ability to provide instructions to solicitors to allow him to conduct his case. Finally, the case was a “lawyers only” case. Given the nature of the evidence, his participation would be very limited. Were he to give evidence, it would simply be to say that he was not there. The District Judge stated that she would not draw an adverse inference were the claimant not to give evidence.
The directions given by the District Judge were as follows:
(a) Ground rules hearing 10.00 a.m. on morning of trial.
(b) Claimant to be permitted to have suitable adult of his choice to sit alongside him at court at all times and to provide props for the claimant to handle during the trial as required.
(c) Both advocates at trial to be experienced Youth Court advocates and to undertake to the court that they are familiar with the relevant Advocates' Toolkit.
(d) A ten-minute break to be allowed for every hour of court sitting (as a minimum).
(e) Defence solicitors to provide prop cards as recommended by the intermediary.
The claimant's previous court appearances
The claimant has a substantial history of appearances in the Youth Court. His first finding of guilt was in September 2017 when he was aged 12. He was made the subject of a referral order for an offence of robbery. He appeared twice when he was aged 13, once for an offence of robbery and once for common assault. Between 24 April 2019 and 8 October 2019 he appeared and was sentenced on six separate occasions for a variety of offences: affray; possession of cannabis; breach of criminal behaviour order; robbery.
On the face of the Police National Computer record the claimant pleaded guilty on each occasion save for 24 April 2019. On this date he pleaded not guilty to an offence of affray. The finding of guilt of that offence followed a trial in the Youth Court.
The reports of the psychologist and the intermediary
The reports on which the claimant relied in making the application to the District Judge for the appointment of an intermediary had been prepared in anticipation of a trial listed on 16 September 2019 in respect of a charge of robbery. A written application for the appointment of an intermediary for the duration of that trial was submitted to the court on 13 September 2019. In the event it was not pursued because the claimant admitted his guilt and no trial took place. This was the case in respect of which he was sentenced on 8 October 2019. No point was taken by the District Judge as to the fact that the reports were based on assessments made in August and September 2019 in relation to a different set of criminal proceedings. We conclude that she did not consider that this was relevant to her decision. This must have been because, given their nature, the assessments were equally valid in relation to the charges on which the claimant was due to be tried in January 2020.
The intermediary, Danielle Marron, assessed the claimant on 27 August 2019 in a meeting which lasted an hour and ten minutes. She found that the claimant was reluctant to engage with assessment tasks and quickly became bored. He did engage after encouragement from the intermediary with whom he built up a rapport over the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The King on the application of AF v Milton Keynes Council
...local authority accept the Claimant's asserted age). Mr Gardner submitted that this would be “the only appropriate course” (per R (TI) v Bromley Youth Court [2020] EWHC 1204 (Admin) at paragraph 36 In addition, the Claimant sought a mandatory order requiring the Defendant to provide suppor......
-
‘I am not beholden to anyone… I consider myself to be an officer of the court’: A comparison of the intermediary role in England and Wales and Northern Ireland
...intermediaries in England and Wales spoke in interview of a preference for assisting either38. Stanford vUK, n. 37 above at [30].39. [2020] EWHC 1204 (Admin) [41].40. For an example of this see RvBiddle [2019] EWCA Crim 86 where Communicourt, a commercial provider of intermediaries,made it ......