F, R (on the application of) v Knowsley Magistrates Court

A lower criminal court should adopt a strict approach to revisiting an earlier order. A second application may be entertained only where there has been a change of relevant circumstances. Where a repeat application is materially the same and no such change has occurred, the later court should refuse it. The rule applies to repeated applications to adjourn a trial. A decision made in breach of that principle may be quashed on judicial review, and the court may give consequential directions where remittal would serve no useful purpose.

Two 16-year-old defendants, jointly charged with attempted criminal damage, challenged the decision of a district judge sitting at Knowsley Youth Court to adjourn their trial at the Crown Prosecution Service’s request. Earlier that morning, lay justices had refused an application to vacate the trial because the prosecution file was incomplete. The district judge later granted a further application based substantially on the same circumstances, including the absence of prosecution witnesses and disclosure difficulties.

The central issue was whether any relevant change of circumstances justified revisiting the morning decision.

1. Applications granted. The court applied the principle stated in R v Acton Youth Court ex-parte DPP (2002) Crim L.R. 75, as applied in R (on the application of Watson) v Dartford Magistrates’ Court [2005] EWHC 905 (Admin). A lower court must take a strict approach to revisiting and revoking its own earlier order. It may do so where there is a change of relevant circumstances, but otherwise the repeat application should be refused.
2. The Crown Prosecution Service accepted that the afternoon application was, in substance, the same as the application refused in the morning. There had been no relevant change of circumstances. The district judge therefore erred in granting the adjournment.
3. The court did not need to decide the alternative arguments based on Wednesbury irrationality or legitimate expectation. The application was resolved by the failure to follow the rule governing repeat applications.
4. The decision to adjourn was quashed. Since the Crown stated that it would offer no evidence if the repeat application were refused, remittal for a further substantive hearing would serve no useful purpose. The proceedings were remitted to the Magistrates’ Court with a direction that the charges be dismissed. An appropriate defendants’ costs order was made, payable from Central Funds under section 16(5)(a) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

The judgment concerned applications for judicial review of a decision made by District Judge Chatelier at Knowsley Youth Court. The earlier decision of lay justices refusing an adjournment was not separately cited. The Divisional Court granted both applications, quashed the later adjournment decision and remitted the proceedings with a direction that the charges be dismissed.