R (on the application of Sumal) v Leicester Crown Court 2024
S was charged with an offence of transmitting images and sound from prison without authority pursuant to section 40D of the Prison Act 1952. Following voluntary interview, S was summonsed to attend court and appeared at the requested time. The PTPH was adjourned on numerous occasions, due to matters relating to the co-defendant, P, and during this period, S remained on bail with no conditions attached.
When the PTPH took place in the Crown Court, the judge imposed a bail condition requiring S to remain at her home address and an additional condition, requiring S to surrender her passport.
S applied for permission to seek judicial review of the Judge's decision on the grounds that the Judge had:
- Misapplied provisions in the Bail Act 1976,
- Taken account of irrelevant matters and given insufficient weight to relevant ones,
- Reached a conclusion that was irrational.
Held
Application and claim allowed in part in relation to ground 1.
Before considering the challenges to the original decision, the court considered whether it was within the jurisdiction of the court to hear an application of judicial review in relation to bail, as section 29(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 restricts the jurisdiction of the High Court over the Crown Court (the court that imposed S’ bail conditions). As the matter did not relate to a criticism of a trial process, the Kings Bench Division were not prevented from considering the application of judicial review. Additionally, due to section 17(6)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the court had jurisdiction to review a bail decision by the Crown Court. Whilst that was the case, it was noted that judicial review of bail should occur sparingly.
The challenges were dealt with as follows:
Ground One
Section 5(3) of the Bail Act 1976 requires the court to give reasons for "withholding bail or imposing or varying the conditions" and it was submitted that the judge in the Crown Court failed to comply with the requirement. Whilst section 5(3) is important and does require reasons to be given, the reasons given may be brief.
In this case, whilst the judge had given reasons for imposing the residence condition (referencing the length of time between the hearing and the trial to justify imposition) he did not provide reasons for imposing the second condition requiring S to surrender her passport. A declaration to that effect was sufficient and that failure was insufficient to quash the decision to impose bail conditions.
Grounds Two and Three
The judge’s decision was not wrong in law. Although S was previously on unconditional bail, that did not establish a presumption that conditions could not, or would not, be applied – the issue for the court remaining whether S would fail to surrender to custody.
As the trial date had been pushed back and S had indicated his intention to leave the country, each condition imposed was a sensible precaution and proportionate. Although it was acknowledged that a different judge on a different day may have taken a different course of action that was not proof that the decision taken by the Judge was irrational – it was rational.
The alleged failure to give sufficient weight to relevant considerations, came to no more than repetition of the rationality argument because the submission must have been that the Judge should have attached greater significance to the fact that S had surrendered to bail without need for conditions. The weight attached to that matter was for the Judge to consider in the circumstances as they appeared to him. S's compliance with her bail until that time, raised no further presumption that conditions should not be attached. The Judge was entitled to weigh matters as he did.
It was submitted the judge in the Crown Court had taken irrelevant matters into account during the hearing. Specific issue was taken with the judges conduct and terminology used in correspondence.
Firstly, the judge’s manner when dealing with bail relating to S was criticised. Whilst he may have been brusque, legally the review determined there was no issue with this aspect of the case, with the judge discussing all matters and providing opportunity for counsels to comment.
Secondly, issue was taken with the judge referring to S as a non-UK national within email correspondence when S was British. Whilst the terminology used was incorrect, no issue was taken with the comment as it did not have any relevance to the judge’s imposition of the bail condition requiring surrender of S’ passport.
Thirdly, issue was taken with the judges conduct in relation to the co-defendant P. Whilst the judge had appeared frustrated towards P that was because he had behaved in a disruptive manner throughout the hearing whereas, that had not been the case with S who had not misconducted herself at all. The judge had sufficiently explained his reasoning for the bail conditions imposed against S.
Therefore, grounds 2 and 3 failed.
Whilst the claim was partly allowed in relation to Ground 1, that was solely to the extent of a declaration, with no further relief granted to S as the decision to add the bail condition was one that was rightly open to the Judge and should not be quashed.
View the full R (on the application of Sumal) v Leicester Crown Court 2024 case document here, with links to related legislation and similar cases.
