[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> B v Carlisle Crown Court [2009] EWHC 2826 (Admin) (07 October 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/2826.html Cite as: [2009] EWHC 2826 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Sitting at: Manchester Civil Justice Centre 1 Bridge Street West Manchester M3 3FX
		7th October 2009

Mr Justice Langstaff:

1. This is a renewed application for permission to appeal by way of judicial review proceedings in the County Court in Carlisle which resulted in the conviction of a girl aged then 15. Her mother advances the claim for judicial review before me, although her daughter was represented by solicitor and counsel at their appeal before the Crown Court on serious charges of section 47 assault.
2. Before I come to the one ground for which I grant permission to appeal, I need to deal with the very great number of grounds and complaints which Mrs B has about the proceedings at the Carlisle County Court, because I do not grant permission to appeal further in respect of those matters. The general principles, as I have explained to her, are that this court interferes only with extreme reluctance in proceedings which are placed before either Magistrates' or the Crown Courts. There are many policy reasons for that. Secondly, that what may seem to be a difference in treatment of prosecution witnesses and defence witnesses in her daughter's case may be explained -- and in my view, is explained in this case -- by the way in which her daughter's case was presented to the court by those representing her daughter. The Crown Court is not at fault for any difference in treatment which results from decisions made by solicitor and barrister instructed on behalf of Mrs B's daughter.
3. The extent of questioning by the judge of witnesses, again, is entirely normal as a part of the process, and there is nothing in any allegation of bias insofar as it relates to the presence of the youth offending team summoned not directly by the judge but at his instigation to the court, and because it does not indicate that he had made up his mind before hearing all the evidence.
4. The one matter upon which, however, I do grant leave is a matter which (very fairly) is conceded by Ms Pritchard very fairly, who appears to represent the interests of the Crown Prosecution Service, the defendant effectively in this case as an irregularity. This was that the judge during the course of the defence witness evidence asked the two girls, S and B, who had been called to give evidence supportive of Mrs B, questions designed to find out whether they had any previous convictions, and if so what those previous convictions were. And indeed they did have previous convictions, and had been in previous trouble.
5. There are three reasons why this might be thought to be a material irregularity. First, asking questions that were designed to reveal the bad character of somebody who is not the defendant is governed by section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and Ms Pritchard agrees that there is no obvious reason why the questioning by the judge impinged on what that section permits, and it would make such evidence inadmissible unless there were such a reason. She appeared to prosecute in the Crown Court, and was surprised, she tells me, that the judge embarked upon this line of questioning.
6. Secondly, no such question had been addressed to other non-parties, in the sense that none of the prosecution witnesses of a similar age were asked questions designed to discover whether they had any previous convictions. So there was to that extent a difference in treatment between the prosecution witnesses and the defence witnesses.
7. Thirdly, that the judge, in giving the reasons why he and the two Magistrates sitting with him were satisfied so that they were sure the case had been proved against Mrs B, concluded that they had to decide which of the two groups of witness, those called for the prosecution or those called for the defence, were telling the truth. It is possible that that decision may have been influenced by the knowledge of the previous convictions of the defence witnesses, though nothing in terms is said as to precisely why the judgment was reached save that the judge and Magistrates were quite satisfied that the evidence given on behalf of the prosecution was to be preferred to the point that they were sure that it was right.
8. I have therefore considered, since it has been accepted that this constitutes an irregularity in the process, whether it should be open to Miss B and to the Litigation Friend, her mother, to proceed to a full hearing for judicial review on this one point. I should add, however, that I have made it very clear, I hope, that the court does take a very restricted approach on the type of circumstances in which it would be appropriate to interfere with a Crown Court decision; and I am not saying that this is a case in which the irregularity is necessarily such that it will compel a court to grant a review. That will be very much for the court to decide, and I have indicated to Mrs B that she is at risk on behalf of her daughter of paying the costs of the Crown Prosecution Service should she proceed and fail. I have indicated that she very well might. It is a matter for her, of course, but she might be very well advised to seek competent legal advice about what to do, but as I say it is a matter for her.
9. For my part, I therefore grant permission on that ground for the reasons I have given. I express my gratitude to Ms Pritchard for her observations. The matter will be reserved for a Divisional Court, bearing in mind that in particular it is calling into question proceedings before a Crown Court, and arrangements will be made in due course to list a time which is convenient. It my view, it should be convenient not just to Mrs B or anyone that she chooses to instruct, but also to Ms Pritchard, who is likely to be of assistance to the court hearing the substantive application as she has been for me. I shall not give any further directions unless either of you would push me to do so.
10. Can I end where I began: nothing must be said which would identify your daughter's name, so she will simply be called B. That is how her name will appear on any report of this case. Thank you very much.

Order: Application granted in part.