W & M, R (on the application of) v Oldham Youth Court

W & M, R (on the application of) v Oldham Youth Court

The District Judge erred in law by not considering M's case separately for committal, resulting in the quashing of M's committal. The committal of W was within the District Judge's entitlement based on the material before him and the real prospect of a sentence in excess of two years.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
First Claimant: The Queen on the Application of W; Second Claimant: The Queen on the Application of M; Defendant: Oldham Youth Court; Interested Party: Interested Party
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in respect of M; committal decision quashed. Appeal dismissed in respect of W; committal stands.
Legal Topics
Committal for Trial, Sentencing of Juveniles, Venue Determination, Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, Powers of Criminal Courts (sentencing) Act 2000
Criminal Law Youth Justice Judicial Review Committal for Trial Sentencing of Juveniles Venue Determination Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 Powers of Criminal Courts (sentencing) Act 2000

Source-derived case record

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen on the Application of W

First Claimant

The Queen on the Application of M

Second Claimant

Oldham Youth Court

Defendant

Interested Party

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether District Judge erred in law by not considering each defendant separately for committal
  2. 2 Whether there was a real prospect of a sentence in excess of two years for W
  3. 3 Appropriate principles for committal of juveniles for grave crimes

Ratio Decidendi

The District Judge erred in law by not considering M's case separately for committal, resulting in the quashing of M's committal. The committal of W was within the District Judge's entitlement based on the material before him and the real prospect of a sentence in excess of two years.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in respect of M; committal decision quashed. Appeal dismissed in respect of W; committal stands.

Orders

  • Committal decision for M quashed; venue to be reconsidered by Magistrates’ Court.
  • Costs to be taxed for M, who is publicly funded.