W, R (on the application of) v Camberwell Youth Court & Anor

Whether to adjourn criminal proceedings is a discretionary decision for the trial court. The court must rigorously examine the circumstances causing the delay, the reasons for it, and its consequences for both prosecution and defence. Relevant considerations include expedition, especially in youth proceedings, the seriousness of the allegation, the public interest in a trial, the victim’s position, and any actual prejudice to the defendant. Prosecutorial inefficiency is not to be tolerated, but it does not automatically require an adjournment to be refused. Judicial review is justified only where the decision is irrational or relevant considerations have been ignored. Sparse reasons alone will not invalidate the decision where the surrounding material demonstrates that the necessary matters were considered.

W, aged 14 when the alleged robbery occurred, applied for judicial review of the Camberwell Youth Court’s decision to adjourn the prosecution after the Crown failed to provide primary disclosure and was not ready for trial. The adjournment was opposed, and the court refused to extend custody time limits because the prosecution had not acted with due diligence. W was released on conditional bail and the trial was later brought forward.

The justices’ acknowledgment explained that they had considered the seriousness of the allegation, the case history, W’s failures to surrender to bail, the prosecution’s failures, and the victim’s wish to support the prosecution. The central issue was whether the adjournment was unlawful because the reasons given at the time were sparse.

1. Disposition. The claim for judicial review was refused. The justices’ decision to adjourn was not unlawful.
2. Adjournment decisions are matters of discretion for the trial court. There are no hard and fast rules. The court must examine the circumstances leading to the application, the reasons for it, and the consequences for the prosecution and defence, and decide what is fair overall. Applications must receive rigorous scrutiny.
3. Expedition is particularly important in criminal proceedings involving young defendants. The need for expedition is reinforced by custody time limits and article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the public interest in prosecuting serious offences, the victim’s interests, and the importance of determining guilt or innocence may justify an adjournment despite prosecutorial inefficiency.
4. The claimant identified no relevant trial prejudice. The short delay was unlikely to affect the factual issues, and the need to face a trial was not itself legally relevant prejudice. The claimant’s earlier remand resulted from his failures to comply with bail conditions and did not constitute punishment for the alleged offence.
5. The prosecution’s failure to comply with disclosure was inexcusable, and courts should not create the impression that such inefficiency will be tolerated. Nevertheless, the justices had considered the relevant matters. Their reasons were sparse, but that deficiency alone did not make the decision irrational or justify judicial review.

The usual costs order was made.

This was a first-instance judicial review application. Permission was granted at the substantive hearing after an earlier adjournment of the permission application by a deputy judge.