Price, R (on the application of) v Southern Derbyshire Magistrates' Court & Anor

A criminal trial should proceed in the defendant’s absence only where the court is satisfied that no unfairness will result. An application to adjourn on medical grounds requires a judicial assessment of all the circumstances, including the medical evidence, the defendant’s conduct, the history and age of the proceedings, the witnesses’ position and the need for expedition. A fair opportunity to attend is not unlimited, but proceeding in the defendant’s absence is a serious step and should ordinarily be a last resort. Where medical evidence raises a genuine issue, the court may need to make further enquiries before refusing an adjournment.

The claimant was convicted in his absence by Southern Derbyshire Magistrates' Court after the District Judge refused to adjourn a prosecution for common assault. The claimant relied on medical certificates concerning stress, together with alleged threats and other circumstances affecting his ability to attend. He had previously applied unsuccessfully under section 142 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 to set aside the decision. He sought judicial review, contending that the refusal to adjourn was unfair and that the conviction should be quashed.

The central issue was whether, in the circumstances, the District Judge had been entitled to proceed with the criminal trial in the claimant’s absence.

1. Claim allowed. The decision refusing the adjournment was quashed and the matter was remitted for retrial as soon as reasonably practicable.
2. Section 11 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 confers a discretion to proceed in the accused’s absence. That discretion must be exercised judicially and with proper regard to the defendant’s right to a fair trial, including a fair opportunity to hear the evidence and give evidence or call witnesses. The principles stated in R v Bolton Justices, ex parte Merna [1991] 155 JP 612 were applicable.
3. Proceeding with a criminal trial in the defendant’s absence is a serious step which should rarely be taken and only where there are very good grounds for concluding that no unfairness will result. The opportunity to attend court is not unlimited, as explained in R v Ealing Magistrates' Court, ex parte Burgess [1999] 165 JP 82, but the question remains fact-sensitive.
4. Ill health may properly justify an adjournment, particularly where attending court creates greater stress than conducting litigation in writing. The court must weigh the medical evidence against the age and circumstances of the proceedings, the witnesses’ position, the need for expedition, previous adjournments and any risk of manipulation.
5. Here, the District Judge was entitled to doubt the claimant’s account, but relied too heavily on his conduct in other proceedings and made no further enquiries of the doctors or the claimant. The medical material raised a genuine issue which required fuller investigation. The refusal therefore failed to take proper account of all material facts.
6. The retrial was to proceed promptly and the claimant was placed on strict terms. Any further medical application would require full and proper evidence, provided as far as possible in advance. Costs were ordered out of central funds, with detailed assessment.

• Southern Derbyshire Magistrates' Court: refused an adjournment, proceeded with the prosecution in the claimant’s absence and convicted him.
• Section 142 application: the claimant’s application to set aside the decision was refused.
• High Court (Administrative Court): judicial review claim allowed; the refusal to adjourn was quashed and the case remitted for retrial.