Director of Public Prosecutions v Stafford Magistrates' Court & Anor

When a prosecutor is absent at the appointed time, a magistrates’ court must make proper enquiries into the reasons for the absence before dismissing the charge. Dismissal is appropriate only if the court is satisfied that there is no good reason to proceed otherwise. The court should consider whether the prosecutor is on the way, whether the witnesses and defendant are present, whether the case can still be heard that day, and whether an adjournment is appropriate. Irritation with prosecutorial inefficiency cannot justify dismissal as a punishment. A decision to dismiss may be unlawful where the court knows, or should readily discover, that the prosecutor attended the wrong court by mistake and is likely to arrive shortly.

The Director of Public Prosecutions sought judicial review of Stafford Magistrates’ Court’s dismissal of a minor criminal-damage charge against Dennis Weston. The charge was listed for trial on 5 April 2012. The defendant, his solicitor and the prosecution witnesses attended, but the prosecutor mistakenly went to Stoke Magistrates’ Court. The prosecutor’s office notified Stafford that she was leaving Stoke, and the journey was estimated at up to 40 minutes.

The magistrates dismissed the charge at about 10.25 am under section 15 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, without making proper enquiries. The central issue was whether, in those circumstances, dismissal fell within the lawful range of responses.

1. The claim succeeded. The magistrates could not reasonably dismiss the charge on the facts known to them. The dismissal was quashed and the charge was to be heard by a differently constituted court.
2. Section 15(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 gives the court power to dismiss where the accused appears and the prosecutor does not. That power must be exercised consistently with rule 37.11(2) of the Criminal Procedure Rules. Where no evidence has yet been received, the court must enquire into the reasons for the prosecutor’s absence and may dismiss only if satisfied that there is no good reason.
3. The magistrates knew that the prosecutor had gone to the wrong court. A proper enquiry would have established, or confirmed, that she was travelling to Stafford, the likely duration of the journey and the continuing presence of the witnesses. The case was likely capable of completion that day. Those matters made it necessary to wait for the prosecutor rather than dismiss the charge.
4. The court recognised the magistrates’ understandable irritation and their power to manage proceedings robustly. However, section 15 is not a punitive power. Any sanction for prosecutorial inefficiency had to be imposed by a different means.
5. The reasoning in Hendon Justices, ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions [1994] QB 167 applied. The decision was also consistent with London Borough of Bromley v Bromley Magistrates’ Court (2011) 175 JP 175. Each case remained fact specific.

This was a first-instance judicial review in the Administrative Court. Permission had been granted by Kenneth Parker J. The court quashed the magistrates’ dismissal and directed that the charge be heard by a differently constituted court.