Stavrinou, R (on the application of) v Horseferry Road Justices

The power to adjourn a summary trial must be exercised by examining all relevant circumstances, including the reasons for the application, responsibility for the delay, the effect on both parties, costs and the seriousness of the allegation. There are no hard and fast rules. A decision is unlawful where the court proceeds on a materially false basis, fails to identify the true cause of the absence of witnesses, or gives disproportionate leeway to one party. However, an unlawful decision to adjourn does not necessarily require the court to have refused the adjournment. Judicial review relief may properly address the continuing consequences of defective case management, including by staying proceedings while permitting an application to dismiss the charges.

The claimant faced a summary charge of driving with excess alcohol, the alleged reading being one milligram above the prescribed limit. The prosecution failed to secure the attendance of the police witnesses and analyst for the first trial hearing. The magistrates adjourned the trial, apparently treating responsibility for the delay as shared and relying on the interests of justice.

A further adjournment was granted after the analyst was again unavailable. The claimant sought judicial review of the first decision and asked the court to take the later proceedings into account. The central issues were whether the first adjournment decision was legally flawed and what relief should follow.

1. The first adjournment decision was quashed. The statutory power to adjourn under section 10(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 is not governed by rigid rules. The court must scrutinise the circumstances leading to the application, the reasons advanced and the consequences for the prosecution and defence. The guiding consideration is fairness in the circumstances.
2. The magistrates proceeded on a significantly false basis by treating the claimant as partly responsible for the delay. The evidence showed that the prosecution had failed to warn the police witnesses and had failed to secure the analyst's attendance. The magistrates therefore failed to grapple with the essential responsibility for the adjournment, the additional defence costs, the limited seriousness of the allegation and the significance of the earlier case-management directions.
3. The absence of a formal notice under section 16(4) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 did not make the decision lawful. It was potentially relevant, but the prosecution had accepted in substance that it knew the analyst was required and had not suggested that any default by the claimant caused the absence.
4. The court adopted the approach in R v Hereford Magistrates' Court, ex parte Rowlands concerning intervention where a defendant cannot call witnesses whose evidence concerns critical issues, while recognising that applications for last-minute adjournments require rigorous scrutiny. The sentiments were also reflected in Essen v DPP.
5. The court did not hold that refusal of the adjournment was legally compelled. After properly considering the circumstances, the magistrates could lawfully have granted it, particularly in light of the absence of formal section 16(4) notice. The later decision was not quashed, but its consequences were taken into account. The magistrates' proceedings were stayed for all purposes except an application by the prosecution to dismiss the charges. The claimant's costs were ordered out of central funds.

The claim arose from summary criminal proceedings before Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court. The magistrates adjourned the first trial on 30 September 2005, and a further adjournment was granted on 13 December 2005. The Administrative Court quashed the first decision, declined to quash the second, and stayed the proceedings subject to an application by the prosecution to dismiss the charges.