Blick, R (on the application of) v Doncaster Magistrates' Court

When deciding whether to reopen a conviction under section 142 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, the court must consider the overall interests of justice. A defendant’s diligence may be relevant, but it is not the primary or exclusive test. The court must consider all relevant matters, including the defendant’s interest in having an opportunity to answer a serious charge, and must disregard irrelevant matters. The inconvenience or cost of a rehearing cannot outweigh the interests of justice. A decision based on a false test, irrelevant considerations, or failure to consider the defendant’s interests is unlawful and may be quashed.

The claimant had been convicted in her absence of offences concerning horse passports. She applied under section 142 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 for the case to be reheard before different magistrates. The District Judge refused the application, relying on the claimant’s failure to attend court and notify the court of her change of address, the repeated adjournments and public expense, and alleged prejudice to the prosecution caused by the absence of a witness.

The claimant sought judicial review of that refusal. The central issue was whether the District Judge had applied the correct approach to the statutory question whether reopening the case would be in the interests of justice.

1. The application for judicial review succeeded. The court quashed the District Judge’s refusal, set aside the claimant’s conviction, and directed that the case be heard by a different judge.
2. Section 142 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 gives the magistrates’ court a broad discretion. The court must consider all relevant considerations and exclude irrelevant ones. The High Court will not lightly interfere, but may do so where the decision is based on irrelevant considerations or is unreasonable in the Wednesbury Corporation case sense: [16].
3. The District Judge wrongly treated whether the claimant had acted with all due diligence as the primary test. Diligence could be relevant, but section 142 required an assessment of the overall interests of justice: [17].
4. The District Judge also relied on two irrelevant matters. There had been only one fixed trial date, so the reference to repeated adjournments and consequent public expense was incorrect. Further, the prosecution’s decision to proceed without a witness was not caused by the claimant’s absence and did not establish prejudice attributable to her: [17]-[18].
5. The District Judge failed to consider the claimant’s interests. The inconvenience of the court cannot outweigh the interests of justice, and a defendant should have an opportunity to defend a serious charge. The claimant’s interests were absent from the reasons: [19].
6. These errors were cumulatively fatal. The refusal was based primarily on a false test, took account of irrelevant considerations, and failed to take account of a relevant consideration: [20].

The judgment does not state a prior appellate decision. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted by Sullivan J on 13 April 2007. The Administrative Court quashed the District Judge’s refusal, set aside the conviction and directed a rehearing before a different judge: [2]; [21].