Hussain, R (On the Application Of) v Crown Court at Leeds

Factual and Procedural Background

The Claimant, a 46-year-old man on conditional bail since October 2021, faces two counts of rape alleged to have occurred between October 1998 and December 2002, as part of a broader alleged child sexual exploitation case involving six defendants. The criminal trial, initially scheduled for November 2023, has been deferred until September 2024. Bail conditions imposed since October 2021 include a prohibition on travel outside the United Kingdom and surrender of the Claimant’s passport to the police.

In December 2022, the Claimant sought to vary these bail conditions to allow travel to Pakistan to attend his mother’s funeral and burial, given her imminent death. The first application, without surety or security, was refused. A second application included a fixed itinerary, £40,000 in cash security from two friends, and a surety valued at approximately £110,000 offered by the Claimant’s brother-in-law. This application was also refused by the Crown Court Judge on 22 December 2022.

The Claimant subsequently brought judicial review proceedings challenging the refusal to vary bail conditions. Permission for judicial review was granted, and the claim was heard substantively.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Crown Court Judge gave legally adequate reasons for refusing the bail variation application, specifically addressing the proposed conditions including surety, security, and fixed itinerary.
2. Whether the refusal of the bail variation was unreasonable, disproportionate, or legally insufficient, particularly considering the necessity and proportionality of bail conditions in light of Article 8 ECHR rights (right to respect for family life) of the Claimant and his mother.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Judge failed to provide legally adequate reasons engaging with the specific safeguards proposed, including surety and security, and thus did not properly consider the application in accordance with the Bail Act 1976.
• The refusal was beyond the bounds of reasonableness, being unnecessary, disproportionate, and legally insufficient, particularly given the Claimant’s Article 8 rights and the significant safeguards offered.
• The Claimant is of good character, has strong ties to the UK, has complied with bail conditions, and the offences are historic with trial two years away.
• The bail variation sought was time-limited and motivated by urgent family circumstances involving the imminent death of the Claimant’s mother.
• The Claimant offered substantial financial security and surety to secure his return, which should have mitigated the risk of absconding.
• On the reasonableness ground, the Court should quash the refusal and substitute a decision granting bail on the proposed conditions.
• On the reasons ground alone, a remittal to a different judge for reconsideration was sought.

Respondent's Arguments

• The police and prosecution maintain a significant risk that the Claimant would not return from Pakistan, given the serious nature of the offences and potential for a long custodial sentence.
• Although the Claimant has ties to the UK, he also has significant ties in Pakistan, increasing the risk of non-return.
• The bail conditions, including travel restrictions and passport surrender, remain necessary to secure the Claimant’s surrender to custody.
• The proposed sureties and securities do not sufficiently allay concerns about absconding.
• The decision to refuse bail variation was justified, reasonable, and proportionate in the circumstances.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by considering whether the Crown Court Judge’s reasons for refusing the bail variation were legally adequate. Although the Judge did not explicitly mention the proposed conditions such as surety, security, fixed itinerary, or the 45-day limit, the court found that the reasons were sufficient when viewed in context. The Judge had clearly considered the submissions, including the safeguards offered, and concluded that the risk of the Claimant not returning was substantial despite these measures.

The court emphasized that the Judge’s reference to "any attempt to leave the jurisdiction" encompassed leaving even with the proposed safeguards and that the refusal was based on the conclusion that these safeguards did not allay the risk. The court rejected the argument that the reasons were legally inadequate and found no ambiguity or lack of clarity in the Judge’s decision.

Turning to the reasonableness ground, the court acknowledged the Claimant’s strong ties to the UK, good character, and the serious family circumstances motivating the application. However, it accepted the Crown Court Judge’s assessment of a substantial risk of non-return given the serious nature of the offences, the potential for a lengthy custodial sentence, and the Claimant’s ties to Pakistan.

The court highlighted the statutory tests under the Bail Act 1976, noting the requirement that bail conditions be necessary to secure surrender to custody and that the court be satisfied there are substantial grounds for believing the defendant would fail to surrender if released. The court recognized the primary role of the Crown Court in evaluating these risks and afforded appropriate latitude to its discretion.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the Judge’s decision was within the bounds of reasonableness and proportionate, balancing the Claimant’s Article 8 rights with the public interest and risk of absconding. The court also noted that, applying an objective correctness standard, it would have reached the same conclusion as the Crown Court Judge.

Holding and Implications

The court granted permission for judicial review but DISMISSED the substantive claim.

The refusal to vary bail conditions was upheld as legally adequate and reasonable. The decision maintains the existing bail conditions, including travel restrictions, passport surrender, and the denial of permission to travel to Pakistan for the funeral. No new precedent was established; the ruling affirms the Crown Court’s discretion in bail variation matters, particularly in cases involving serious offences and risk of absconding despite offered safeguards.

Regarding costs, the court ordered the Claimant to pay costs to the prosecution in the amount of £2,500, reflecting the circumstances of the rolled-up hearing and the human context of the case.