Crown Prosecution Service v Picton

A magistrates’ court has a broad discretion to adjourn a criminal trial, but must scrutinise an adjournment application rigorously. It must balance the defendant’s interest in expedition against the public interest in the proper adjudication of criminal charges. Relevant considerations include the seriousness of the allegation, the likely length and consequences of delay, the freshness of evidence, the reason for the application, any fault by the requesting party, and the history of the case. An appellate court will interfere only on clear grounds, such as an error of law or an unreasonable exercise of discretion.

The Crown Prosecution Service appealed by case stated against the decision of Dartford Magistrates’ Court on 1 August 2005. The magistrates refused to adjourn a common assault trial because the prosecution witnesses had been warned to attend at 2.00 pm rather than the listed start time of 10.00 am. The court list was heavily committed, and an adjournment was likely to require a part-heard trial and substantial delay.

The prosecution contended that the case should have been heard later that day or relisted. The respondent opposed the application, relying on the prosecution’s unreasonable error and the resulting delay. The central question was whether a properly directed and reasonable bench could have refused the adjournment.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The case stated question was answered yes: a reasonable bench, properly directed as to the law, could properly have refused the adjournment.

2. Under section 10(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, the decision whether to adjourn is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. An appellate court should interfere only where clear grounds are shown, including an error of law or an unreasonable exercise of discretion.

3. The relevant approach, as summarised from Essen v Director of Public Prosecutions [2005] EWHC 1077 (Admin), requires rigorous scrutiny of adjournment applications. The court must balance the defendant’s interest in having the case resolved, the public interest in the adjudication of criminal charges, and, where relevant, the interests of the victim. It must consider the seriousness of the charge, the likely duration of any adjournment, the effect of delay on recollection, the reason for the application, fault, and the procedural history.

4. The magistrates were entitled to rely on the existing one-day time estimate. They had no sufficient reason to assume that the trial could be completed after a lunchtime adjournment. Even if evidence had begun later that day, the case would probably have continued part heard after a substantial interval. That consequence was properly regarded as undesirable and could weigh heavily against granting the adjournment.

5. The magistrates’ refusal was neither Wednesbury unreasonable nor affected by legal error. The court also confirmed that the subsequent fact that other listed cases ended earlier could not retrospectively undermine the decision, since those developments were unknown when the adjournment application was determined.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): [2006] EWHC 1108 (Admin) dismissed the prosecution’s appeal by case stated and answered the stated question in the affirmative.
2. Dartford Magistrates’ Court: on 1 August 2005 refused the prosecution’s application for an adjournment, with the result that the case was dismissed.