ZN & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Bromley Youth Court
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE HAYDEN
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Civil Procedure
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case revolves around the Claimants' Judicial Review application against a decision by District Judge Hunter. Initially, the Youth Court accepted jurisdiction in a robbery case involving the Claimants and set a trial date. However, due to concerns about the fairness of splitting the trials with an adult co-defendant, the case was sent to Crown Court. This decision was challenged, raising key legal issues about jurisdiction and the interests of justice. The Claimants argue that the Youth Court's decision on the mode of trial is irrevocable and that the revised decision lacked jurisdiction. Previous relevant case law and statutes were referred to, and the potential impact on the victims was a significant consideration. The court recognized that there are arguable grounds for Judicial Review, focusing on the legality of the Youth Court's actions and their compatibility with statutory and human rights principles.
Judgment
Mr Justice Hayden :
These two Claimants seek permission to apply to Judicially Review the decision of District Judge Hunter, sitting at the Bromley Youth Court on the 25 th March 2014. On that date the District Judge determined that both claimants, AM (aged 16 years) and ZN (aged 16 years), should be sent for trial at the Croydon Crown Court in order that they might be tried together with an adult co-defendant concerning an allegation of robbery, contrary to Section 8 Theft Act 1968 .
The Claimants had already appeared before the Youth Court on a number of occasions prior to the 25 th of March 2014. On the 11 th Febraury the Lay Justices accepted jurisdiction, pleas were entered and the case was adjourned for trial in the Youth Court. It seems likely that the Prosecution would at that stage have outlined the case to the court from a standard case summary document, in order for the Justices to determine venue for trial. Whether the court was told of the existence of a potential further defendant is uncertain.
The Prosecution puts its case on the basis that this offence was a ‘Joint Enterprise’ perpetrated by three defendants acting together each having anticipated or foreseen that force would be used against the complainant, force or the threat of it being an essential constituent of the offence of robbery. With commendable efficiency the case was listed for trial in the Youth Court on the 4 th April 2014.
The third Defendant, an 18 year old man, had in fact appeared in the Bromley Magistrates Court on 3 rd March on which occasion his case was sent to the Crown Court at Croydon, robbery being an indictable only offence. On the 17 th March 2014, the adult Defendant made his first appearance in the Crown Court before His Honour Judge Gower QC. There is an ex-post facto note made of the Judge’s observations on this date prepared by counsel following a subsequent hearing on the 1 st May to which I will refer in due course. The Judge has not been asked to approve this note but is has been compiled by experienced counsel, Mr Bunting who appears on behalf of AM and I am confident in its accuracy. (It would be helpful to invite the Judge to approve this document). It is plain that the Judge was troubled by the consequence of splitting the trials. His concern, which I share, can be distilled thus:
The Complainants are young people and one, I am told, is an additionally vulnerable witness. Splitting the trial requires them to give evidence twice which