Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2006] All ER (D) 378 (Oct)
Neutral Citation: [2006] EWHC 2683 (Admin)
Court: Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court)
Judge:

Auld LJ and Wilkie J

Representation Stephen Field (instructed by Needham Poulier & Partners) for the claimant.
  Tim Ward (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State, an interested party.
  Simon Wild (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the prosecution, an interested party.
Judgment Dates: 31 October 2006

Catchwords

Crown court - Supervisory jurisdiction of High Court - Trial on indictment - High Court having no supervisory jurisdiction in matters relating to trial on indictment - Claimant arrested pursuant to witness summons - Order by Crown Court judge remanding claimant into custody for 15 days following giving of evidence as judge of opinion real risk that claimant might be re-called - Claimant applying for judicial review - Claimant seeking damages for breach of his right to liberty - Whether order 'relating to trial on indictment' - Whether Divisional Court having jurisdiction to hear application for declaration - Whether judge applying correct test - Whether claimant entitled to damages - (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965, s 4(3) - , s 29(3) - , s 8, Sch 1, Pt 1, art 5.

The Case

The decision taken in the course of a trial by the trial judge to detain a witness pending receipt of further evidence was a matter relating to trial on indictment and therefore, in accordance with s29(3) of the 1981 Act, there was no jurisdiction to entertain the claim for judicial review. Moreover, the power to remand in custody pursuant to s4(3) did not expire merely upon the commencement of a witness giving evidence on the first day, rather it continued for as long as it was anticipated that the claimant might be required to give evidence on subsequent days provided the judge was of the opinion that there was a real possibility that either side might recall the claimant

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.