Malik v Central Criminal Court & Anor

The hearing of a bail application affecting personal liberty should start from a presumption in favour of open justice. Departure from this norm must be justified by necessity in the interests of justice. The Common Serjeant failed to apply this presumption and thus his decision to refuse a public hearing was quashed.

Parties: Claimant/applicant: Usman Malik; Defendant/respondent: Central Criminal Court; Defendant/respondent: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 27 June 2006
Procedural Posture: Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome: Application allowed in part
Legal Topics: Bail, Open Justice, Judicial Review, Right to Public Hearing, Presence of Defendant

Criminal Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Bail Open Justice Judicial Review Right to Public Hearing Presence of Defendant

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2

Parties

Usman Malik

Claimant/applicant

Central Criminal Court

Defendant/respondent

Crown Prosecution Service

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

1 Whether the refusal to hear a bail application in public was lawful
2 Whether the applicant was entitled to be present at the bail hearing
3 Whether the decision of the Common Serjeant was susceptible to judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part

Orders

The refusal to hear the bail application in public is quashed.
A judge of the Central Criminal Court must re-determine whether to sit in public and whether to grant bail as soon as practicable.