Lawson v Stafford Magistrates' Court

Magistrates may adjourn a criminal trial after the close of the prosecution case where special circumstances justify allowing the prosecution to rectify an evidential deficiency identified only at a late stage. The power must be exercised rarely and fairly, with regard to prejudice to the defendant. The Criminal Procedure Rules require active case management and early identification of the real issues. A late defence ambush is a relevant circumstance. An adjournment in those circumstances does not demonstrate apparent bias merely because the clerk invites the prosecution to apply. The decision is reviewable only if wrong in principle or perverse.

The claimant faced a speeding charge arising from an alleged breach of a temporary 30 mph limit. After both sides had closed their cases, defence counsel raised, for the first time in closing submissions, issues concerning the road signs and the testing of the speed-measuring device. The magistrates adjourned the trial part heard so that the prosecution could seek to adduce further evidence, relying on Hughes v Director of Public Prosecutions [2003] EWHC 2470 (Admin). The claimant sought judicial review, alleging apparent bias, unlawfulness and perversity. The central issues were whether the magistrates could adjourn in those circumstances and whether their conduct created a real possibility of bias.

1. The claim was dismissed. The magistrates’ decision to adjourn the trial part heard was correct in principle and was not perverse.
2. The court applied the apparent-bias test stated in In Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 2) [2001] 1 WLR 700 and approved in Porter v McGill [2002] 2 AC 357. The question was whether the circumstances would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility that the magistrates were biased. The late identification of the defence issues, the magistrates’ jurisdiction to adjourn, and the possibility of reopening the prosecution case did not meet that threshold.
3. The Criminal Procedure Rules required active case management and early identification of the real issues. Under rules 1.2 and 2.3, the prosecution, defence and court shared responsibility for conducting the case justly. A defendant should be asked at a pre-trial hearing what issues were taken. A party could not obtain an advantage from withholding the issues and attempting a trial ambush.
4. Magistrates could adjourn to allow the prosecution to rectify an evidential deficiency identified only after the prosecution case had closed. The power to hear evidence after closure existed where special circumstances were present, although it had to be exercised rarely and with regard to fairness and prejudice. No general restriction confined the power to evidence that was uncontested or capable of being dealt with on the same day.
5. The court would not interfere with the adjournment unless the magistrates had acted on a wrong principle or perversely. Additional inconvenience and legal expense did not make the adjournment unlawful.
6. The claimant was ordered to pay prosecution costs summarily assessed at £3,577.88. Any stay on the magistrates’ court proceedings was lifted.

The judgment describes a judicial review claim against the decision of Stafford Magistrates’ Court. The magistrates had adjourned the criminal trial part heard. The Administrative Court dismissed the claim, lifted any stay, and made a costs order.