Jo Morris persuades High Court to quash Order revoking her client’s bail.

Background to the bail decision

“I have concerns that the defendant will abscond” said the Circuit Judge in a case defended by Jo Morris.

The difficulty was that there was no basis for that view. The defendant had been on bail for many months with which he was compliant. There had been no change in circumstances and even the learned Judge could do no more than provide a headline. When asked to explain the basis of this view, he simply refused to respond.

Application for judicial review

Jo Morris, instructed by Seema Dosaj of Berris Law Solicitors applied to the High Court for judicial review of this decision. Two jurisdictional issues arose.

Jurisdictional issue One: matters relating to trial on indictment

The first is the exclusion of judicial review in respect of “matters relating to trial on indictment” by S29(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981. It is clear that a decision as to bail at any early stage of criminal proceedings does not relate to trial on indictment as that expression has been interpreted in the leading case of Manchester CC ex parte DPP [1994] 98 Cr. App. R. 461 HL.

Jurisdictional Issue Two: susceptibility of bail decisions to judicial review

The second is whether the refusal of bail is susceptible to judicial review in any event. In Croydon Crown Court ex parte Cox [1997] 1 Cr. App. R 20 it was held that such a refusal was not susceptible, but the rationale for this decision was that there was an alternative remedy, namely the possibility which then existed of an application to a High Court Judge. Now, not only has that been abolished but S17(6)(b) of the CJA 2003 provides: “Nothing in this section affects … any right of a person to apply for a writ of habeas corpus or any other prerogative remedy”.

In M v Isleworth Crown Court v HM Customs and Excise, Maurice Kay LJ determined that the existence of prerogative remedies meant that the High Court have jurisdiction to review bail decisions by the Crown Court, albeit recommending that jurisdiction should be used “very sparingly indeed”, deferring to the specialism of the Crown Court.

Decision of the High Court and outcome

Sir Peter Lane found that the decision to revoke bail was irrational and a breach of natural justice, commenting that the judge had not given the parties notice of an intention to hear representation on bail, had failed to provide proper reasons for his view, had refused to hear fuller information when it was available, and had blocked any other judge from hearing the matter.

The order revoking the defendant’s bail was quashed and he was readmitted to bail.

About the Barrister

Jo Morris was called to the Bar in 2003. She prosecutes and defends. Jo’s experience is wide-ranging and includes terrorism, homicide, sexual offences, serious violence, firearms and fraud. Jo is known for her ability to support clients who are vulnerable, under stress, and struggling to deal with legal the process.

To instruct Jo, please contact her clerks, Ryan Bartlett or Amie Harris on 020 7404 1881.