Case details
Summary
An application to adjourn a criminal trial must receive rigorous scrutiny. The court must examine the reasons for the application, the consequences for prosecution and defence, and whether the prosecution has a valid basis for seeking delay. Where a later event raises a significant doubt about the factual basis advanced for an adjournment, the magistrates should reopen the issue and make appropriate enquiries. An adjournment should not be used simply to rescue the prosecution from the consequences of failing to warn its witnesses. Relevant considerations include expedition, the public interest in adjudication, seriousness, prejudice caused by delay, and the validity of the application.
Factual background
The claimant sought judicial review of the Enfield Youth Court’s decision to adjourn his trial on four driving-related charges after two prosecution police witnesses failed to attend. The court was initially told that the witnesses had been warned, but one later attended and said that he had not known of the hearing. The prosecution provided no further explanation. Permission for judicial review had been granted, and the matter came before the Divisional Court after an earlier hearing at which Nelson J invited further information. The central issues were whether the magistrates had acted on an erroneous factual basis and whether the adjournment should have been granted if the witnesses had not been warned.
Held
The decision to adjourn was quashed. The late attendance of one police witness, and his statement that he had not been warned, raised a significant doubt about the factual basis of the prosecution’s application. The magistrates should have reopened the issue and sought a full explanation from the Crown Prosecutor. Their failure to do so meant that the decision was apparently made on an erroneous basis.
An adjournment application requires close and rigorous scrutiny. The court must consider the reasons for delay, its consequences for both sides, and what is fair in all the circumstances, applying the guidance in
The court’s approach to earlier authorities
This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.
Appellate history
Permission for judicial review was granted by a single judge. Following an earlier hearing before Nelson J, the matter was heard by the Divisional Court. The court quashed the Enfield Youth Court’s decision and entered verdicts of not guilty.
Key cases cited
This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.
Cases citing this case
This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.