Harlow-Hayes, R (on the application of) v Cambridge Crown Court

Harlow-Hayes, R (on the application of) v Cambridge Crown Court

The judge erred by failing to ensure the claimants' consent to the binding over orders was informed and by not enquiring into their means before setting the recognisance. The procedure was unfair and the orders must be quashed.

Parties
Claimant: Jean Harlow-Hayes; Claimant: Mrs Turner; Defendant: Cambridge Crown Court; Interested Party: Mr Norman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Orders quashed and matter remitted to Crown Court for reconsideration.
Legal Topics
Binding Over Orders, Consent in Criminal Proceedings, Procedural Fairness, Means Inquiry, Costs
Criminal Law Judicial Review Civil Procedure Binding Over Orders Consent in Criminal Proceedings Procedural Fairness Means Inquiry Costs

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jean Harlow-Hayes

Claimant

Mrs Turner

Claimant

Cambridge Crown Court

Defendant

Mr Norman

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants gave informed consent to the binding over orders
  2. 2 Whether the judge should have enquired into the claimants' means before setting recognisance
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness was observed in making the binding over orders

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred by failing to ensure the claimants' consent to the binding over orders was informed and by not enquiring into their means before setting the recognisance. The procedure was unfair and the orders must be quashed.

Court Disposition

Orders quashed and matter remitted to Crown Court for reconsideration.

Orders

  • The binding over orders against the claimants are quashed.
  • The matter is remitted to the Crown Court for reconsideration in light of representations from the claimants, including the need for further evidence, appropriateness of binding over, and the amount of recognisance.