H, R (on the application of) v Guildford Youth Court, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 03, 2008,  EWHC 506 (Admin)
|Actores:||H, R (on the application of) v Guildford Youth Court|
|Fecha de Resolución:||March 03, 2008|
SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVECO/7340/2007Neutral Citation Number:  EWHC 506 (Admin)IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEQUEEN'S BENCH DIVISIONADMINISTRATIVE COURT Royal Courts of JusticeThe StrandLondonWC2A 2LL Date: Monday 3 March 2008 B e f o r e: MR JUSTICE SILBER_______________The Queenon the application of H - v - GUILDFORD YOUTH COURT _______________ Computer Aided Transcription byWordwave International Ltd (a Merrill Communications Company)190 Fleet Street, London EC4Telephone No: 020 7421 4040(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)_______________ Mr Lionel Blackmann (of Lionel Blackmann Solicitors, Surrey KT198AT) appeared on behalf of The Appellant The Respondents were unrepresented_______________ JudgmentMR JUSTICE SILBER: 1. H appeals with the leave of Wyn Williams J to quash a decision of the Guildford Youth Court made on 26 February 2007 to refuse to stay the prosecution of the claimant on the grounds that it was an abuse of process. The thrust of the claimant's case is first that a representative on behalf of the prosecution had promised not to prosecute the claimant, and second, that they had resiled from that promise. In consequence it is said that the justices ought to have stayed the prosecutions as an abuse but that they failed to do so. 2. An e-mail has been received from the Divisional Crown Prosecutor which shows that the Crown Prosecution Service do not contest the application to quash the conviction. The Youth Court have taken no part in these proceedings. 3. The facts which give rise to this application are that on 26 July 2006 the claimant, who was then 15 years of age, was alleged to have kicked a fellow school pupil in the jaw causing a fracture. 4. The claimant, who had no previous convictions, was interviewed by the police on 8 August 2006 in the presence of an appropriate adult and a representative of his solicitors, Mr Lee Wainscoat. 5. Before the interview with the police it was intimated to Mr Wainscoat that it was possible that the claimant would receive a final warning as a way of resolving the matter. When he was interviewed the claimant admitted the offence, but he maintained that he had been bullied and that that was the reason why he had kicked the victim in the jaw. 6. In the interview the officer told the claimant that he would seek to have the matter resolved that day. The claimant was bailed to an intervention clinic on 30 September 2006 when it was indicated that the matter would be dealt with by way of a final warning. 7. On 31...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR FREE TRIAL