Remice v HMP Belmarsh

Remice v HMP Belmarsh

The claimant's detention was unlawful because the Crown Court, after a successful prosecution appeal against bail, failed to apply section 128A(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 by not providing an opportunity to make representations and not setting a return date, as required when remanding for more than eight days.

Parties
Claimant: Andrew Remice; Defendant: HMP Belmarsh; Interested Party: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus / Judgment
Outcome
writ of habeas corpus granted
Legal Topics
Habeas Corpus, Remand in Custody, Bail, Magistrates' Courts Act 1980

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Remice

Claimant

HMP Belmarsh

Defendant

Crown Prosecution Service

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's detention was unlawful due to failure to comply with section 128A(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 after a successful prosecution appeal against bail
  2. 2 Whether the Crown Court is required to act in accordance with the remand provisions applicable to Magistrates' Courts

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's detention was unlawful because the Crown Court, after a successful prosecution appeal against bail, failed to apply section 128A(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 by not providing an opportunity to make representations and not setting a return date, as required when remanding for more than eight days.

Court Disposition

writ of habeas corpus granted

Orders

  • Writ of habeas corpus to issue
  • Costs out of central funds, subject to taxation