The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) v Radziwilowicz

On a case stated appeal, the facts must ordinarily be taken from the four corners of the case stated. A magistrates’ court has a discretion to adjourn a summary case, but that discretion must be exercised consistently with the overriding objective and fairness to all parties. Immediate trial is appropriate only where the available material permits a fair and effective trial. Prosecutorial default may justify an adjournment and other sanctions, but it does not automatically justify refusing an adjournment and dismissing the charges where the prosecution has no evidence and the proposed trial cannot proceed fairly.

At a first hearing before the magistrates, the defendants pleaded not guilty to public order offences, including a racially aggravated offence. The prosecution had no witness statements or other evidence available, and the prosecutor lacked authority to conduct a trial. The District Judge refused an adjournment, describing the prosecution’s failures as unreasonable and disciplinary action as a legitimate case-management tool. No evidence was offered and the charges were dismissed.

The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed by way of case stated. The question was whether, in those circumstances, the District Judge had acted unreasonably in refusing to adjourn the case.

1. Appeal allowed. The question posed by the District Judge was answered in the affirmative. The matter was remitted to the magistrates so that it could proceed.
2. On an appeal by way of case stated, the case stated is the defining document. The court should determine the issue from its four corners and should not rely on extraneous factual material absent from it.
3. The procedure for summary trial is governed by sections 9 and 10(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. After a not guilty plea, the usual course is to adjourn for trial. The power to adjourn remains a judicial discretion, but it must be exercised in accordance with the overriding objective in the Criminal Procedure Rules 2013.
4. The Stop Delaying Justice initiative does not require an immediate trial where the prosecution evidence is unavailable or the trial cannot be conducted fairly. Its examples concerned cases in which disclosure contained the likely evidence and the real issue was narrow and clearly defined.
5. Director of Public Prosecutions v Picton and Visvaratnam v Brent Magistrates’ Court were distinguishable. They concerned applications to adjourn hearings listed as trials, where the prosecution knew that evidence had to be produced. Here, the hearing was not a trial and the prosecution was required only to have sufficient material to advance the case without another interlocutory hearing.
6. The District Judge’s decision was disciplinary rather than a proper exercise of the adjournment discretion. Although prosecutorial failures could properly be censured and might justify costs or other sanctions, refusing an adjournment deprived the complainants of the opportunity to have the allegations pursued and brought the case to a premature end. The overriding objective required fairness, including respect for witnesses and victims, as well as efficiency and expedition.

• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the DPP’s appeal by way of case stated against the District Judge’s refusal to adjourn and dismissal of the charges; the case was remitted to the magistrates.