The case, R (on the application of Darykie Ramos Molina) v Snaresbrook Crown Court [2024] EWHC 816 (Admin), marks the first time a claimant has succeeded in a judicial review concerning the Bail (Amendment) Act 1993.
The claimant, Darykie Ramos Molina, was granted conditional bail by Barkingside magistrates’ court. The Crown Prosecution Service sought to appeal but failed to serve written notice within the required two-hour period. Regardless of this, Snaresbrook Crown Court heard the appeal and remanded the claimant in custody.
The claimant brought a judicial review, contending the Crown Court judge exceeded her jurisdiction and erred in law by deciding bail was a matter for her because the case was listed in the Crown Court.
At the judicial review, the High Court granted the claim on all grounds.
In their judgment, handed down last week, Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Mr Justice Bennathan said: ‘The importance which the courts attach to the liberty of the subject is profound.
‘The provisions of the 1993 Act are explicit and are meant to be followed because a failure to do so can lead to a person being wrongly deprived of their liberty. The Crown Court is a creature of statute… in consequence it does not possess an inherent jurisdiction to overturn decisions of the magistrates’ court unless the same is conferred by the specific provisions of a statute.’
The claimant was represented by Canel Halil of Emery Halil and Brown Solicitors, and Alex Benn, Red Lion Chambers.
