Malik v Central Criminal Court & Anor [2006] EWHC 1539 (Admin) (27 June 2006)

Malik v Central Criminal Court & Anor [2006] EWHC 1539 (Admin) (27 June 2006)

The Common Serjeant erred by not starting from the presumption of open justice and by failing to treat the applicant's request for a public hearing as requiring a judicial decision based on whether a departure from open justice was justified. The refusal to hear the bail application in public was quashed.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 1539 (Admin)
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 on Application for Judicial Review
Outcome
Application allowed in part; decision refusing public hearing quashed.
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Bail Applications, Judicial Review, Right to Public Hearing, Article 5 ECHR, Article 6 ECHR
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Open Justice Bail Applications Judicial Review Right to Public Hearing Article 5 ECHR +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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Usman Malik

Claimant/applicant

Central Criminal Court

Defendant/respondent

Crown Prosecution Service

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a bail application in the Crown Court should be heard in public or private
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is entitled to be present at the bail hearing
  3. 3 Whether the decision to refuse a public hearing was unlawful

Ratio Decidendi

The Common Serjeant erred by not starting from the presumption of open justice and by failing to treat the applicant's request for a public hearing as requiring a judicial decision based on whether a departure from open justice was justified. The refusal to hear the bail application in public was quashed.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; decision refusing public hearing quashed.

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.