O, R (on the application of) v Crown Court At Harrow

O, R (on the application of) v Crown Court At Harrow

Section 25 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, as amended, does not violate Article 5(3) ECHR provided courts retain genuine discretion to consider all relevant circumstances and do not apply an irrebuttable presumption against bail; the burden on the defendant is evidential, not legal, and the prosecution must satisfy the court that bail should not be granted. The custody time limit regime does not override the public interest in detaining those who pose serious risks. The regulations are not ultra vires. Section 25 is not discriminatory under Article 14 as the distinction is objectively justified.

Parties
Claimant: The Queen (on the application of ‘O’); First Respondent: The Crown Court at Harrow; Second Respondent: The Governor of HM Prison Wormwood Scrubs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review and Habeas Corpus Application / Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Bail, Custody Time Limits, Burden of Proof, Compatibility With ECHR Article 5, Judicial Review, Ultra Vires, Discrimination Under Article 14
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Bail Custody Time Limits Burden of Proof Compatibility With ECHR Article 5 Judicial Review +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen (on the application of ‘O’)

Claimant

The Crown Court at Harrow

First Respondent

The Governor of HM Prison Wormwood Scrubs

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review and Habeas Corpus Application / Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 25 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is compatible with Article 5(3) of the European Convention on Human Rights
  2. 2 Whether the amended custody time limit regulations are ultra vires
  3. 3 Whether the burden of proof under section 25 is compatible with Article 5(3)

Ratio Decidendi

Section 25 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, as amended, does not violate Article 5(3) ECHR provided courts retain genuine discretion to consider all relevant circumstances and do not apply an irrebuttable presumption against bail; the burden on the defendant is evidential, not legal, and the prosecution must satisfy the court that bail should not be granted. The custody time limit regime does not override the public interest in detaining those who pose serious risks. The regulations are not ultra vires. Section 25 is not discriminatory under Article 14 as the distinction is objectively justified.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for judicial review and habeas corpus dismissed
  • No relief granted to the claimant