Lappin, R (on the application of) v HM Customs & Excise

Whether refusal to adjourn proceedings breaches the fair-trial guarantee depends on all the circumstances. The court may consider both the importance of proposed expert evidence and the party’s responsibility for failing to obtain it. Persistent failure to comply with directions may justify proceeding without the evidence. In those circumstances, insisting on the hearing proceeding is not disproportionate or unfair, even where the absence of expert evidence makes it more difficult to challenge the opposing party’s case.

Customs and Excise seized money from the claimant and obtained an order for its forfeiture under section 42 of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994. The claimant appealed to the Crown Court. After directions had been given allowing time to obtain expert evidence concerning cocaine contamination on the banknotes, he sought an adjournment shortly before and again at the hearing. The Crown Court refused the application and dismissed the appeal.

The case was stated to the Administrative Court on whether refusal of the adjournment breached the claimant’s right to a fair trial under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The refusal to adjourn did not breach the claimant’s Article 6 rights.
2. The right to a fair trial in the determination of civil rights and obligations must be assessed in all the circumstances. The assessment includes the desirability of expert evidence and the reason why the party lacked that evidence at trial.
3. A party seeking to rely on Convention rights must prepare its case with diligence. Where the absence of expert evidence results from persistent failure to obtain it over a substantial period, the resulting trial is not thereby rendered unfair.
4. The claimant had been given a timetable designed to enable him to obtain expert evidence. He failed to comply with it and sought an adjournment only shortly before the hearing. The Crown Court was entitled to take that conduct into account and to insist that the hearing proceed.
5. The Crown Court had carried out a balancing exercise, although it had not expressed it in Article 6 terms. Its decision was neither disproportionate nor unfair. The forfeiture appeal was therefore dismissed.

The case was stated by the Crown Court sitting at Caernarfon after it dismissed the claimant’s appeal from the Justices for the Petty Sessional Division of Anglesey. The Administrative Court answered the stated question in the negative and dismissed the appeal.