Turner v Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court

Section 2(6) of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 does not exhaust a magistrates’ court’s general power to adjourn under section 54 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. That power must respect the statutory purpose of expedition, but may justify an adjournment beyond 14 days where compelling circumstances make a fair hearing necessary. The court must balance the affected person’s Convention rights against the protection of the public and neighbours from continuing disorder or serious nuisance. A further adjournment may properly be refused where evidence was available in sufficient time and the lack of preparation resulted from the applicant’s own choices. A stayed closure order may take effect once the stay is lifted if its statutory period has not expired.

The claimant, tenant of residential premises, sought judicial review of a closure order made by Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. He argued that earlier adjournments exceeded the court’s powers, that the proceedings should have been stayed, and that refusal of a further adjournment denied him a fair hearing. The central issues concerned the relationship between section 2(6) of the 2003 Act and section 54 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, and the effect of Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention.

1. Application dismissed. Closure-order proceedings under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 are civil, not criminal, proceedings.
2. Section 2(6) of the 2003 Act is not exhaustive of the magistrates’ power to adjourn. Section 54 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 co-exists with it. The general power must be exercised in the interests of justice, consistently with the statutory purpose of speedy protection of the public and affected neighbours.
3. The phrase exceptional circumstances in Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police v Hooper [2005] EWHC 340 (Admin) does not mean only rare circumstances. It includes circumstances sufficiently compelling to take the case outside the ordinary 14-day limit. The claimant’s mental-health difficulties, lack of legal representation and need for legal advice justified the 25 February adjournment.
4. The refusal of a further adjournment on 9 March was lawful and reasonable. The evidential file had been available from the outset and was available to the new solicitors several days before the hearing. The magistrates were entitled to balance the claimant’s rights against the statutory need for expedition and the interests of protected persons.
5. The stay on the closure order was lifted because the statutory three-month period had not expired. The claimant was ordered to pay the interested party’s costs, subject to enforcement only with leave of the court.

Judicial review at first instance. The underlying closure-order proceedings took place before Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court on 9 March 2005. The application for judicial review was dismissed and the stay on the closure order was lifted.