Jones, R (on the application of) v Guildford Crown Court

A Crown Court has a broad discretion to adjourn a criminal appeal so that relevant prosecution witnesses can attend, particularly where the evidential issue arose from a technical objection and the evidence appears substantially undisputed. A challenge to the making of a costs order must be properly framed. Where the real issue concerns the defendant’s means and whether a different order should have been made, the reviewing court should obtain the Crown Court judge’s reasons before determining the application. A transcript should be obtained and supplied to the defendant’s solicitors where it is necessary for fair and effective consideration of the challenge.

The claimant sought permission for judicial review and a mandatory order requiring the Guildford Crown Court to state a case concerning its dismissal of her appeal against a conviction for driving with excess alcohol. The Crown Court had adjourned the appeal for two days so that three prosecution witnesses could attend after unsigned section 9 statements were ruled inadmissible. It then dismissed the appeal and ordered the claimant to pay £500 costs.

Owen J dismissed the application on paper. On renewal, the Administrative Court considered whether the adjournment was permissible and whether the costs challenge was properly formulated, in circumstances where the claimant alleged that her means had not been adequately considered.

1. Adjournment. The Crown Court’s decision to adjourn the appeal for two days to secure the attendance of three prosecution witnesses was amply within its discretion. The first proposed question was therefore properly described as frivolous, notwithstanding some reservation about the use of that word.
2. Costs. The second proposed question was ineptly framed. The Crown Court had power to make a costs order. The potentially material issue was whether, having regard to the claimant’s means, it should have made a different order.
3. Need for reasons. It was elementary, before considering an application of this kind, to obtain a transcript of what the Crown Court judge had said, particularly where the judge and the Crown Court had indicated that it would assist the High Court. The absence of a transcript prevented the court from fairly determining the costs issue.
4. Directions. The court directed that a transcript of the judge’s reasons for making the costs order be obtained from the Crown Court at public expense and sent to the claimant’s solicitors. They were allowed three weeks to make written submissions and formulate a sensible question. The court would then decide whether to make the mandatory order sought or dismiss the application.

1. Administrative Court: Owen J dismissed the application on paper.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): On renewal, the court directed further evidence and submissions before finally determining whether to grant or dismiss the application.