Crown Prosecution Service, R (on the application of) v Winchester R.Court

An adjournment application in a Crown Court appeal is a case-management decision, but the court must exercise its discretion rationally and with careful attention to all relevant interests. In a criminal appeal against conviction, those interests include the appellant, the prosecution, any victim and the public interest. Particular weight may be required where the conviction depended on witnesses who are unavailable because the hearing date was changed at short notice. The court should investigate the likely length of any delay and consider practical alternatives. A refusal based on unsupported criticism of witnesses, or on delay that has not been properly assessed, may satisfy the Wednesbury threshold for judicial review.

The Crown Prosecution Service sought judicial review of the Winchester Crown Court’s decision on 20 March 2003 to refuse an adjournment of Simon John Woodland’s appeal against his conviction by Basingstoke Magistrates’ Court. The appeal had originally been listed for 21 March, when three prosecution witnesses had confirmed their availability. The hearing was brought forward to 20 March at the defendant’s request, without notice to the prosecution. The witnesses could not attend at such short notice, and the prosecution offered no evidence after the adjournment was refused.

The central issue was whether the refusal was a lawful exercise of the Crown Court’s case-management discretion.

1. The application for judicial review was allowed and the Winchester Crown Court’s decision was quashed. The matter was remitted for early listing.

2. Refusing an adjournment is a discretionary case-management decision. The Administrative Court will intervene only where the decision is plainly and obviously wrong by reference to Wednesbury principles.

3. The court must adopt a careful and balanced approach. In a Crown Court appeal where the prosecution cannot proceed, it must consider the interests of the appellant, the respondent prosecution, any victim and the public interest. The court should also consider whether there are alternative means of dealing with the difficulty.

4. Significance attached to the fact that the appellant had already been convicted, and that the conviction depended on the absent witnesses. The witnesses had confirmed their availability for the original hearing date. There was no material showing culpability by them or the police. The criticism that they should have informed the court of their difficulties on the newly introduced hearing date was unsustainable and irrational.

5. The Crown Court had attached high importance to avoiding further delay without making a proper inquiry into the likely duration of the delay or when another judge and magistrates could hear the appeal. The refusal therefore lacked the careful attention required in the circumstances and was a decision no reasonable court could have reached.

• Winchester Crown Court: on 20 March 2003, refused an adjournment of the defendant’s appeal against conviction. The prosecution then offered no evidence and the appeal was allowed.
• High Court (Administrative Court): quashed the refusal and remitted the matter to Winchester Crown Court for early listing.