Bail - forfeiture of security - bail granted on security of defendant's property - third party interest in property - security not including third party's interestR (Stevens) v Truro Magistrates' Court: QBD (Lord Justice Brooke, Mr Justice Morison and Mr Justice Stanley Burnton): 18 July 2001The defendant appeared before justices charged with fraud and was granted bail on the condition, among others, that he deposit with the court, as security for his appearance, the 'title deeds' of his house or, as later amended, the sum of 100,000.The house, worth 120,000, was subject to a charge of 56,000 in favour of his mother, the applicant.

The charge certificate was lodged with the court with the applicant's consent and the defendant was released on bail.He absconded and the justices forfeited the security and directed that the charge certificate be retained until 100,000 was paid.

The applicant was not present or represented in court and no notice had been given to her of the possible forfeiture, although it was likely that she knew that forfeiture was the likely outcome if the defendant failed to appear.The applicant applied for judicial review of the decision effectively to forfeit that part of her beneficial interest in the property as was required to realise the 100,000 security.Ashley Ailes (instructed by Lemon Line & Felton, Salisbury) for the applicant; David Sapiecha (instructed by the solicitor, CPS, Truro) for the Crown Prosecution Service; Hugo Keith (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) as friend of the court.Held, granting the application (Mr Justice Stanley Burnton dissenting in part) that security for a defendant's appearance at court under section 3 of the Bail Act 1976 should usually be in the form of cash or a banker's draft, although courts had power to require a defendant to give security by less simple means if the justice of the case demanded it; that a third party could make an asset available to the defendant as security for his release on bail; that in such a case the court would not be concerned with arrangements between the defendant and the third party in the event of forfeiture and had no duty to notify the third party; but that since the justices had failed to make clear the extent to which the applicant's interest in the defendant's land was the subject of his security, the security only extended to such beneficial interest as the defendant possessed.

(WLR)