JUDICIAL REVIEW — Crown Court — Jurisdiction — Judge imposing unlawful sentence — Whether sentence to be quashed in judicial review proceedings — Whether matter “relating to trial on indictment” — Supreme Court Act 1981 (c 54), s 29(3)

R (Crown Prosecution Service) v Crown Court at Guildford

DC: Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers CJ and Griffith Williams J: 4 July 2007

The Divisional Court had no power to quash an unlawful sentence imposed on a defendant by a Crown Court judge.

The Queen’s Bench Divisional Court so held in dismissing an application by the Crown Prosecution Service for judicial review of the decision of Judge Bull QC sitting in the Crown Court at Guildford on 15 May 2006 to sentence Andrew Michael Edwards to an extended sentence of seven years’ imprisonment with a four-year extended licence period, pursuant to s 227 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, following his conviction for rape.

THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said that s 227 of the 2003 Act only applied to offences that were not “serious offences” under the Act. Rape was a serious offence. The CPS submitted that the judge, having formed the view of the defendant’s dangerousness that he did, had been required to sentence him pursuant to s 225 to life imprisonment or imprisonment for public protection. The CPS submitted that the Divisional Court had jurisdiction to quash the sentence imposed. In order to succeed, the CPS had to establish that the sentence was not a matter “relating to trial on indictment” within s 29(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, which excluded such matters from the jurisdiction of the Divisional Court. The CPS had relied on R v Maidstone Crown Court, Ex p Harrow London Borough Council [2000] QB 729 and R (Kenneally) v Crown Court at Snaresbrook [2002] QB 1169 to argue the general proposition that the Divisional Court had power in judicial review proceedings to quash any sentence that exceeded the jurisdiction of the sentencing court. That was not a legitimate general principle to derive from those two authorities. Where there had been a trial on indictment and, thereafter, the judge made an error in sentencing, that plainly fell within the statutory definition under s 29(3) of a matter “relating to trial on indictment”. Accordingly, the Divisional Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application.

GRIFFITH WILLIAMS J agreed.

Appearances: Richard Bendall, who did not appear below, (CPS, Guildford) for the CPS; Robert Tresman (Atkins Hope, Horley) for Edwards, as an interested party.

Reported by: Jill Sutherland, barrister