KL v R.

KL v R.

The making of an excepting direction under section 45(5) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 after conviction is susceptible to judicial review, as it is not a matter relating to trial on indictment. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, does not have concurrent appellate jurisdiction but may exercise ancillary powers when dealing with a substantive appeal. The trial judge’s decision to remove the applicant’s anonymity was not plainly wrong, and the minimum term of 15 years was not manifestly excessive.

Parties
Applicant: KL; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal and Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal Sentence and Judicial Review of Reporting Restriction Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused; permission to apply for judicial review granted but claim dismissed; stay on Excepting Direction removed.
Legal Topics
Reporting Restrictions, Anonymity of Juvenile Defendants, Appeal Against Sentence, Judicial Review of Crown Court Orders, Open Justice, Public Interest, Protection of Children in Criminal Proceedings
Criminal Law Judicial Review Media Law Reporting Restrictions Anonymity of Juvenile Defendants Appeal Against Sentence Judicial Review of Crown Court Orders Open Justice +2 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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KL

Applicant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal and Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal Sentence and Judicial Review of Reporting Restriction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the making of an excepting direction under section 45(5) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 after conviction is susceptible to judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, has concurrent jurisdiction with the Divisional Court to review excepting directions
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in removing the applicant's anonymity

Ratio Decidendi

The making of an excepting direction under section 45(5) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 after conviction is susceptible to judicial review, as it is not a matter relating to trial on indictment. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, does not have concurrent appellate jurisdiction but may exercise ancillary powers when dealing with a substantive appeal. The trial judge’s decision to remove the applicant’s anonymity was not plainly wrong, and the minimum term of 15 years was not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused; permission to apply for judicial review granted but claim dismissed; stay on Excepting Direction removed.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
  • Permission to apply for judicial review granted.