Criminal Litigation

 The magistrates indicated that the defendant would not be committed to the crown court for sentence provided that the pre-sentence report did not disclose that he was a danger to the pub­lic.

Although the report stated that he was not, he was nonetheless subsequently committed for sentence. He argued that his committal was un­lawful, being contrary to a legitimate expectation engendered by the indication that had been given by the justices.

HELD When the challenge is not to the origi­nal decision, but to the decision to commit despite the indication given by the magistrates, the court is reviewing the reasonableness of the decision to commit for sentence, not the view taken by the original bench. However, it is im­possible to conceive of circumstances in which a properly given indication could be gone back on by a subsequent decision without that deci­sion itself being held to be irrational or unlaw­ful.

Whenever the challenge arises, whether it is to the original or subsequent decision, it is the rationality and lawfulness of the first decision which ultimately determines the issue (per Mr Justice Mitting at para 12).