Nadour, R (on the application of) v Chester Magistrates' Court

When deciding whether to adjourn a criminal trial, magistrates must exercise their discretion by considering all material circumstances. These include the defendant’s ability to present the defence, the likely length and consequences of delay, responsibility for the need to adjourn, the history of the case, and the competing public and private interests. Expedition is important, but it cannot be treated as the sole consideration. A refusal based only on the general need for speedy trials is reached without proper direction. Where that error materially affects the decision, the refusal may be quashed and any resulting conviction must also be quashed.

The claimant was prosecuted before Chester Magistrates’ Court for theft and going equipped to steal. Her alleged co-defendant had pleaded guilty and indicated that she had acted alone, making her a material defence witness. When the witness failed to attend on the listed trial date, the claimant sought an adjournment. The magistrates refused the application, referring to the tight availability of trial time and the need to proceed expeditiously.

The claimant was convicted, although sentence had not been passed. She sought judicial review of the refusal to adjourn and consequential relief. The central issue was whether the magistrates had lawfully exercised their discretion.

1. The claim succeeded. The court quashed the magistrates’ refusal to adjourn, and consequently quashed the conviction which followed. The matter was remitted to the Magistrates’ Court for further consideration by a fresh bench or District Judge.

2. The decision whether to adjourn is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. An appellate or reviewing court must be slow to interfere. However, the discretion must be exercised by reference to the relevant circumstances, including the need for expedition, the defendant’s ability to present the defence, the likely length and consequences of delay, the reason for the adjournment, any fault, and the history of the proceedings. These considerations derive from the approach collected in CPS v Alan Picton, [2006] EWHC 1108 (Admin).

3. The magistrates had been aware of the relevant guidance, but their contemporaneous note showed that the only matter which weighed with them was the general pressure on trial time and the desirability of proceeding expeditiously. They had not investigated the next available trial date or considered the history of the case, the extent of any delay, or the possible prejudice to the prosecution or defence.

4. Where magistrates consider one factor to the exclusion of the other relevant factors, they have not properly directed themselves. The resulting decision cannot stand, notwithstanding the usual reluctance to interfere with the exercise of a trial court’s discretion.

• Chester Magistrates’ Court: On 24 June 2008, refused the claimant’s application to adjourn her criminal trial. The trial proceeded and she was convicted.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Quashed the refusal and the consequential conviction, and remitted the matter to the Magistrates’ Court for rehearing by a fresh bench or District Judge.