Bromley, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor

Bromley, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor

Parliament did not intend that procedural irregularities in the constitution of the Crown Court or the form of a warrant would render the warrant or sentence invalid or the resulting detention unlawful, absent prejudice or injustice. The claimant suffered no prejudice, and the interests of justice were not undermined. Both claims fail.

Parties
Claimant: Michelle Bromley; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice (on behalf of the Crown Court at Maidstone); Second Defendant: Chief Constable of Kent; Interested Party: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Crown Court, Constitution of Criminal Courts, Bail and Warrants, Article 5 ECHR (right to Liberty), Procedural Irregularity, Damages for Unlawful Detention
Criminal Law Judicial Review Human Rights Jurisdiction of Crown Court Constitution of Criminal Courts Bail and Warrants Article 5 ECHR (right to Liberty) Procedural Irregularity +1 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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michelle Bromley

Claimant

Secretary of State for Justice (on behalf of the Crown Court at Maidstone)

First Defendant

Chief Constable of Kent

Second Defendant

Crown Prosecution Service

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bench warrant for Michelle Bromley's arrest was unlawful due to lack of jurisdiction and procedural defects
  2. 2 Whether the sentence imposed by a Crown Court constituted with a judge and two lay magistrates was unlawful and rendered the detention unlawful
  3. 3 Whether procedural irregularities in court constitution or warrant form rendered actions void or merely irregular

Ratio Decidendi

Parliament did not intend that procedural irregularities in the constitution of the Crown Court or the form of a warrant would render the warrant or sentence invalid or the resulting detention unlawful, absent prejudice or injustice. The claimant suffered no prejudice, and the interests of justice were not undermined. Both claims fail.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed