Crown Prosecution Service Berkshire Branch v Reading and West Berkshire Magistrates' Court

When reviewing a magistrates’ refusal to adjourn a criminal trial, the court must apply the stringent test of whether the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable bench could have reached it. The assessment must take account of all material and causative factors, including court error, prosecution delay, failures affecting trial fairness and disclosure, the defendant’s circumstances, the public interest in adjudicating serious charges, and the timing and manner of the application. Magistrates must give reasons, but the level of detail required depends on the circumstances. Reasons given late in the day need not be elaborate if they address the substance of the relevant considerations.

The Crown Prosecution Service sought judicial review of the decision of Reading and West Berkshire Magistrates’ Court to refuse an adjournment and dismiss informations alleging careless driving and failing to stop after an accident. The prosecution had de-warned witnesses after receiving incorrect information that the trial had been adjourned, but did not seek an adjournment until 7.40 pm on the scheduled trial date. It also had outstanding disclosure and evidential duties.

The application, brought with permission granted by Edwards-Stuart J, raised whether the magistrates’ refusal was legally unreasonable and whether their reasons adequately addressed the relevant factors.

1. The application for judicial review was refused. The applicable threshold was whether the magistrates’ decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable bench in like circumstances could have reached it, applying the test stated in R v Hendon Justices [1993] 96 Crim App R 227.
2. The court error in recording 8 September rather than 8 June was serious and explained why the witnesses had been de-warned. However, it was not the only causative factor. The prosecution’s failure to analyse unused material, prepare the necessary schedules, and obtain further evidence remained relevant. The prosecution’s disclosure obligations existed to secure a fair trial and were not excused by the assertion that there was sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction.
3. The public interest in prosecuting and adjudicating serious charges, the interests of those affected by the alleged offence, the defendant’s personal circumstances and the potential delay caused by travel to Nepal were also relevant. The authorities required a proper balance between those competing considerations.
4. The late timing of the application was significant. An application made earlier could have explained the position transparently and allowed a short period for the prosecution to discharge its outstanding duties. Deferring the application until 7.40 pm was unrealistic and could reasonably have affected the magistrates’ view of the prosecution’s conduct.
5. Although magistrates must give reasons, the circumstances govern the detail required. Given the late hour and the substantial clerk’s notes, a detailed exposition was unnecessary. The reasons sufficiently addressed the substance of the prosecution delay and preparation failures, even though they did not mention the proposed journey to Nepal.
6. Other magistrates might have given greater weight to the court error and granted the adjournment. That possibility did not establish irrationality. The refusal therefore stood.

• Magistrates’ court: refused the prosecution’s application for an adjournment and dismissed the informations.
• High Court (Administrative Court): refused judicial review and left the magistrates’ decision standing.