Watson, R (on the application of) v Dartford Magistrates' Court

A magistrates’ court should adopt a strict approach to revisiting an earlier order. It may do so in the interests of justice only where there has been a relevant change of circumstances. Judicial review may nevertheless intervene before the conclusion of criminal proceedings where the issue is straightforward, the governing principle is clear, and a later challenge would be practically too late. Relief should preserve only the advantage lost through the improper adjournment. It should not impose wider restrictions on the prosecution or require the magistrates to apply repealed evidential rules. Business documents may be admitted through the statutory approval mechanism without oral evidence, and the law in force when the trial resumes governs their admission.

The claimant faced three motoring charges arising from a road traffic accident. The prosecution’s trial witnesses were unavailable, and the magistrates first refused, then granted, an adjournment without any recorded change of circumstances. The claimant sought prohibition preventing the prosecution from adducing evidence that would not have been available on the original trial date.

The Administrative Court considered whether the magistrates had been entitled to revisit their earlier order, whether the application was premature, and what evidence could properly be excluded in light of the subsequent replacement of the relevant provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 by the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

1. The application was allowed to the limited extent specified. Following R v Acton Youth Court ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions, the magistrates should have refused the second adjournment application. There had been no relevant change of circumstances justifying reconsideration of the earlier order.

2. The usual rule, illustrated by R v Rochford Justices ex parte Buck, is that the Administrative Court should not intervene while magistrates’ proceedings remain incomplete. That rule did not prevent intervention here. The issue was straightforward, the governing principle was clear, and a challenge after conviction might have come too late.

3. The claimant was entitled to preserve only the limited forensic advantage that would have resulted from the trial proceeding on the original date. The prosecution was prohibited from adducing the oral evidence of Miss Bulman and PC Hall. The prohibition did not extend to other evidence or to evidence to like effect.

4. The prosecution could still rely on the relevant business documents. Under section 27 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the documents could have been produced in a manner authorised by the magistrates, including by reference to written statements. The defence did not need to accept the authenticating statement under section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. The documents could now be admitted under sections 117 and 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

5. PC Hall’s evidence merely proved an unnecessary link in the transmission of the documents. The magistrates were directed to apply the evidential law in force when the trial resumed. Costs were ordered out of central funds.

The judgment describes an earlier decision by the magistrates to refuse an adjournment, followed by a later decision granting one. The Administrative Court intervened by judicial review and allowed the application only to the extent of prohibiting the oral evidence of the two named witnesses.