Visvaratnam v Brent Magistrates' Court

A magistrates’ court has a discretion to adjourn a criminal trial, but the power must be exercised consistently with the need for efficient and expeditious justice. An application by the prosecution requires rigorous scrutiny. The court must balance the public interest in trying serious allegations against the defendant’s interest in having the trial proceed, considering the likely length and consequences of delay, the reason for the adjournment, responsibility for the problem, the listing history and any prejudice. Serious and unexplained prosecution failures to secure and disclose essential evidence weigh heavily against an adjournment. The prosecution has no entitlement to one ineffective trial date. A decision unsupported by adequate reasons may be quashed.

The claimant sought judicial review of the decision of Brent Magistrates’ Court on 6 June 2008 to adjourn his trial for driving whilst unfit through drugs. The prosecution’s essential medical witness had not been warned or served, and its forensic scientist had previously indicated that he could not attend. The prosecution had not sought an earlier adjournment and gave no adequate explanation. The magistrates granted an adjournment on the basis that disputed criminal allegations should be tried on their merits. The central issue was whether that decision was lawful and reasonable in the circumstances.

1. Disposition. The application succeeded. The magistrates’ decision to adjourn was quashed, and the claimant was acquitted. Costs were ordered out of central funds under Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, section 16.
2. Section 10(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 confers a power to adjourn a trial, but the power is not unrestricted. The overriding objective in rule 1.1(2)(e) of the Criminal Procedure Rules includes dealing with criminal cases efficiently and expeditiously.
3. Applications to adjourn must be closely and rigorously scrutinised. The magistrates must balance the defendant’s interest in having the case heard, and the public interest in criminal charges being determined on their merits. Relevant considerations include the likely length and consequences of the adjournment, the need to decide facts while memories remain fresh, the reason for the adjournment, fault by the party seeking it, fault by the opposing party, the listing history and any previous adjournments. Reasons should be given.
4. The seriousness of the charge is relevant, but cannot by itself justify an adjournment. Otherwise, prosecutors could disregard the requirement to be ready on the fixed trial date. The prosecution must not assume that it will always receive one adjournment because of its own failures.
5. Although this was the first listed trial and the case did not depend on recollection, the prosecution’s unexplained and serious failures concerned witnesses fundamental to its case. There was no indication when the trial could be relisted, and further delay would cause anxiety and expense. The magistrates were therefore wrong to adjourn.

• Brent Magistrates’ Court: on 6 June 2008, adjourned the claimant’s trial on a charge of driving whilst unfit through drugs.
• High Court (Administrative Court): quashed the adjournment decision and ordered that the claimant be acquitted.